THE STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF

COMMERCIAL GARDENING BUSINESSES IN FULHAM AND

HAMMERSMITH, MIDDLESEX, C. 1680-1861.

BARBARA ANNE ROUGH

WOLFSON COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

SEPTEMBER 2017

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of History for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2

THE STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL GARDENING

BUSINESSES IN FULHAM AND HAMMERSMITH, MIDDLESEX, C. 1680-1861.

BARBARA A ROUGH

ABSTRACT

This dissertation responds to Joan Thirsk’s call for historians to undertake a closer investigation of commercial gardening. It adopts a micro-historical approach, to address two questions, ‘What was a gardener?’, and ‘What was a garden business?’’ Based in the parish of Fulham (including the hamlet of Hammersmith), Middlesex, the parish with the largest acreage of commercial gardening in England in 1796, the study applies nominal linkage to a variety of sources to understand more fully the gardeners, garden businesses, and gardening families between 1680 and 1861.

The dissertation exploits sources with occupational descriptors, including livery company apprentice registers, bankruptcies and insolvencies, clandestine marriage registers, Bank of England accounts, and fire insurance policies, not used previously for a statistical examination of gardening. Quantitative data are set in a rich context using qualitative sources such as newspapers, Old Bailey proceedings and property surveys. Tracing occupational terms through the sources shows that records created by parish and government bodies relied on a few customary terms, each encompassing several different functions in gardening, for much longer than commercial documents, demonstrating how reliance on one source can be misleading.

In this study I argue that occupational descriptors in gardening reflected the focus, but failed to capture the entirety, of what was produced in a garden business. From the early eighteenth century garden businesses should not be viewed simply as a market garden or nursery; they cultivated a diversity of horticultural products, but are also found to have had a variety of other agricultural interests and economic pursuits,

i

introducing new products and responding to new opportunities: gardeners did not only garden. Contrary to the claims of some historians this was not just an early phase in the transition from agriculture to specialist gardening but persisted into the nineteenth century.

This study contributes not only to the history of commercial gardening but also to wider debates in agricultural and business history. From four land-use maps, dated between 1747 and 1843/5 the changing acreage and locations of gardens have been identified, and the first graphical representation of the land use in the parish from the tithe apportionment schedules is presented. The complex interaction between competing land uses is examined providing new findings about how the garden industry adapted in the face of pressures from urban development and other agricultural needs.

Examination of the occupational structure of the industry has been approached through several sources. Very few gardeners were apprenticed, but some families continued to obtain training as gardeners and commercial advantages through one of five different livery companies, as well as the Gardeners’ Company. The parish registers give the first tentative estimate of the size of the industry, while registers of clandestine marriages suggest that gardeners were a significant proportion of the middling sort in Fulham in the early eighteenth century. Comparison of gardening occupations in the 1841, 1851 and 1861 census enumerators’ books provide insights into the structure of the industry but also reveal the inconsistent application of terminology, resulting in the reliability and validity of some of the data being questioned. The implication is that only the 1851 census gives an accurate occupational structure for gardening industry.

The findings of previous studies that most gardeners rented their land have been confirmed. On the bishop of London’s estate the rents were low during the eighteenth century, but few gardeners were his head lessees and therefore able to

ii

benefit. Gardeners had a range of wealth, sufficient for some to have a comfortable living as part of the middling sort while a few had accrued greater wealth from gardening. Garden businesses rarely became bankrupt or insolvent and mainly when there were general economic downturns. Businesses were left predominantly to widows or sons, with the intention of keeping businesses operating and resulting in the establishment of garden business dynasties. The wealth of some businesses demonstrates the benefit of trans-generational transfer, others fared well enough for their business to continue on a smaller scale, but many names came and went from Fulham and Hammersmith commercial gardens in one generation.

iii

Declaration

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text and bibliography.

My dissertation (or any significant part of my dissertation) is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or that is being concurrently submitted, for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution.

I have read, and adhered to, the University’s policy on plagiarism, as detailed at: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/ and that my dissertation does not exceed the length prescribed in the Regulations of the PhD examination for which I am a candidate.

The length of my dissertation is 79,241 words. Signed: Barbara Rough Date: 10.8.18

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would have been impossible without the help of staff at Hammersmith and Fulham archives during a period of disruption when opening hours were reduced and closure was proposed; in particular Anne Wheeldon, the former archivist, Wendy Hawke, archivist from London Metropolitan Archives, who took over temporarily, and to the members of the public who participated in a volunteer staff rota during this difficult period. Thanks are also due to Sarah Millard, Lorna Williams, and Ben White at the Bank of England archives; the archivists at The National Archives at Kew, staff in the manuscripts and map rooms at Cambridge University Library, and the librarian at the Society of Genealogists.

At the University of Cambridge Dr Amy Erickson gave insightful comments on the census, and Professor Martin Daunton provided thought-provoking discussion about land-use. Thanks also to Dr Stephen Thompson and Dr Elizabeth Rough for their comments on the draft, and to fellow student Imogen Wedd, for her continuing support throughout both the good times and the not-so-good moments.

Over the last seven years my supervisor Dr Samantha Williams has been constant in her encouragement and good advice at every point in the process, and I cannot thank her enough for her generosity in giving her time.

Finally, thanks to my family for their support, forbearance, and endless patience through interminable conversations about eighteenth-century gardens.

v

CONTENTS Abstract i Acknowledgements v List of tables viii List of figures x List of maps xii Abbreviations xiv

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL GARDENS, 1747-1843/5 45

3. THE OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE OF COMMERCIAL GARDENING 81

Part 1: Master and apprentice 83 Part 2: Gardening occupations in Parish registers and Clandestine marriage registers 118 Part 3: Gardening occupations in wills 136 Part 4: The census, 1831-61 142 Part 5: Dual occupations 181

4. THE ROLE OF LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND TENURE IN GARDEN

BUSINESSES 191

5. THE BUSINESS OF GARDENING 239 Part 1: The wealth of gardeners 241 Part 2: Business failures 277 Part 3: Succession 290

vi

6. CONCLUSION 313

BIBLIOGRAPHY 323

APPENDIX 1: Land-use maps, 1747 to 1830, and Legend 357

APPENDIX 2: Gardening and agricultural occupational terms used in the Fulham and Hammersmith censuses, 1841, 1851, and 1861. 364

vii

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Parishes with the largest acreage under market gardens within 10 miles of London in 1792 (after D. Lysons, Environs of London (1792)). 15 1.2 Population of the Fulham and Hammersmith ‘sides’ of the parish, 1674-1871. 39 1.3 Number of families employed in agriculture and other trades, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1811-1831. 41 2.1 Proportions of land use in all Fulham parish, 1747-1843/5 (per cent per annum). 66 2.2 Proportions of land use in Fulham and Hammersmith, 1747-1843/5. 67

3.1 (A) Male gardening and agricultural occupations in All Saints, Fulham (F) and St. Paul, Hammersmith (H) baptismal registers, 1698-1707. 124

3.1 (B) Male gardening and agricultural occupations in All Saints, Fulham (F) and St. Paul, Hammersmith (H) baptismal registers, 1813-1836. 125 3.2 Count of register entries and individuals with occupations in all Fulham and Hammersmith vital registers, 1698-1707. 130 3.3(A) Commercial gardening occupations in Fulham CEBs, 1841-61. 155 3.3(B) Commercial gardening occupations in Hammersmith CEBs, 1841-61. 156 3.4 Summary of gardening and agricultural employment, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1841-61, given in table 3.3 (A-B). 157

viii

3.5 Structure of employer households, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851 and 1861. 169 3.6 Structure of employee households, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851. 172 3.7 Incidence of gardeners with dual occupations, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1700-1861. 185 3.8 Summary of gardeners’ dual occupations, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1700-1861. 186 4.1 Total business acreage of gardeners who were head lessees on the bishop of London’s estate in the Fulham tithe apportionment schedule, 1843. 207 4.2 Cost of a 21 year lease for Rowberry Mead, Fulham, over 7 year intervals, 1795-1815. 209 4.3 Total business acreage of active freehold and copyhold gardeners in Fulham, 1843, and Hammersmith, 1845. 213 4.4 Occupations of landlords of garden land in the Fulham and Hammersmith tithe apportionment schedules, 1843/5. 225 4.5 Place of residence of landlords of garden land in the Fulham and Hammersmith tithe apportionment schedules, 1843/5. 226 5.1 Number of cash bequests in gardeners’ wills, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 259 5.2 Comparison of proportions of cash bequests in gardeners’ wills in Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1767, with Marsh’s findings for all London, 1639-1767. 261 5.3 Comparison of investment in houses by gardeners in Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858, with Marsh’s data for gardeners in London and Middlesex, 1650-1740. 264 5.4 Location of investment property in gardeners’ wills and fire insurance policies, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 266

ix

5.5 Comparative wealth for gardening occupations, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 272 5.6 Comparison of the total wealth in gardeners’ wills with or without Bank of England assets, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 274 5.7 Recipients of gardening business transfers in gardeners’ wills, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 297 Appendix 2 Gardening and agricultural occupational terms used in the Fulham and Hammersmith censuses, 1841, 1851, and 1861. 364

LIST OF FIGURES

3.1 Gardening apprentices by date of indenture or admission by patrimony, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 95 3.2 (A) Cascade of apprentices in the Gardeners’ Company, 1772-1838 – the Bagley family. 101 3.2 (B) Cascade of apprentices in the Gardeners’ Company, 1720-1795 – the Burchell family. 102 3.2 (C) Cascade of apprentices in the Fishmongers’ Company, 1795-1843 – the Fitch family. 103 3.2 (D) Cascade of apprentices in the Pattenmakers’ Company, 1778-1824 – the Matyear family. 104 3.2 (E) Cascade of apprentices in the Tylers’ and Brickmakers’ Company, 1759-1851 – the Plaw family. 105 3.3 Placement of Fulham and Hammersmith parish apprentices by occupation and location, 1680-1750. 116

x

3.4 Baptisms where the father was a gardener/nurseryman/market gardener as a proportion of all baptisms, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1698-1707 and 1813-36. 126 3.5 Male agricultural and gardening occupations, and labourers, in Fulham and Hammersmith, in all Anglican and Quaker vital registers, and clandestine marriage registers for Fulham parish residents, 1698-1707. 129 3.6 Clandestine marriages of Fulham grooms, 1700-54. 134 3.7 Number of wills of all male residents compared to male gardeners’ wills, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 139 3.8 Distribution of occupations given in gardeners’ and agricultural wills for men and women, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 140 3.9 Garden employees by acreage of garden in Fulham, 1851. 162 3.10 Ages of all men and women in gardening occupations, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851. 175 3.11 Ages of gardeners, employers and labourers, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851. 176 3.12 Comparison of ages of males occupied in commercial gardening in England and Wales, and Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851. 177 3.13 Birthplaces of the employers and employees in commercial gardening, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851. 179 4.1 Total acreage of individual occupiers of garden ground in Fulham (1843) and Hammersmith (1845) tithe apportionment schedules. 215 5.1 Effect of the time between a will being written and proven on the difference between the amounts of investments given in wills and in will extracts of gardeners, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1762-1843. 251

xi

5.2 Distribution of all gardeners’ wills, with and without wealth mentioned, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 255 5.3 Incidence of assets in gardeners’ wills by date proved, Fulham and Hammersmith 1680-1858. 256 5.4 Asset portfolios in gardeners’ wills, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 257 5.5 Total wealth of all gardeners, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 273 5.6 Number of bankrupt or insolvent gardeners in the London Gazette, Fulham and Hammersmith 1720-1859. 278 5.7 Distribution of all insolvency and bankruptcy notices for gardeners in Fulham and Hammersmith, London, and England and Wales, 1720-1849. 280 5.8 All bankruptcies in England and Wales 1780-1850. 281 5.9 Comparison of the date proved of all gardeners’ wills with those wills including a business transfer, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 293

LIST OF MAPS

1.1 Land use in London in the first decade of the nineteenth century. 17 1.2 Fulham and Hammersmith in relation to London and the City, 1786. 36 1.3 Sketch map of Fulham and south Hammersmith, after Faulkner, 1813. 37

xii

2.1 Extract from Rocque’s map showing market gardens and Fulham Field in the southern part of Fulham parish, 1747. 50 2.2 A disused orchard? 51 2.3 Extract showing Bartholomew Rocque’s garden at Waltam [sic] Green, Fulham. 52 2.4 Extract showing small commercial gardens in Fulham. 53 2.5 Extract from Thomas Milne’s land-use map, 1800. 54 2.6 Extract from John Salter’s map at Brook Green, Hammersmith, 1830. 56 2.7 Extract from the Fulham tithe apportionment map showing the south west of the parish, 1843. 58 2.8 Detail of Fulham Field around Dawes Road, Fulham parish, showing open field strips, housing and plot numbers. 59 2.9 Land use in Fulham and Hammersmith, 1843/5, based on the tithe surveys. 63 2.10 Distribution of soil types in Fulham and Hammersmith. 70

Appendix 1, Map 1, Land use in Fulham and Hammersmith based on John Rocque’s map, 1747. 357 Appendix 1, Map 2, Land use in Fulham and Hammersmith based on Thomas Milne’s map 1800. 359 Appendix 1, Map 3, Land use in Hammersmith based on John Salter’s map, 1830. 361 Legend to land-use maps 363

xiii

ABBREVIATIONS

AgHR Agricultural history review BEA London, Bank of England Archives CUL Cambridge University library EcHR Economic history review HFA London, Hammersmith and Fulham archives LMA London, London Metropolitan archives RHS London, Royal Horticultural Society SoG London, Society of Genealogists TNA London, The National Archives

xiv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION When Pehr Kalm, a Swedish botanist and explorer, travelled through Middlesex in 1748 he remarked that, ‘... at all places between Fulham and Chelsea, which is a distance of two English miles ... we saw little else than mere gardens, and especially vegetable market gardens.’1 Almost 50 years later Daniel Lysons noted that in Fulham, ‘the cultivation of gardens for the market [is] carried on to a greater extent than in any other [parish] in the kingdom’.2 The innovative techniques, high productivity and potentially high earnings in commercial gardening were of considerable interest to contemporary commentators from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, particularly to those ‘improvers’ looking to promote efficient farming.3 Market gardens provided fruit and vegetables for urban dwellers, both rich and poor, supplied new products to satisfy consumer demand for novel flavours, and year-round availability of fresh produce.4 Commercial gardening was a distinctive part of the transition to agrarian capitalism and specialisation, the paradox being that gardening - arguably the most efficient form of agricultural production - could occur in the open fields.5

All places of publication are London unless otherwise specified. 1 P. Kalm, Kalm’s account of his visit to England on his way to America in 1748, trans. and ed. J. Lucas (1892), pp. 35-6. Kalm’s actual words ‘tra gardar’ were translated as ‘mere gardens’ and ‘koks krydd gardar’ as ‘vegetable market gardens’ although the latter could refer to kitchen gardens (literally kitchen herb garden). Thanks are due to Jacob van Oelreich, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, for this translation and clarification. 2 D. Lysons, ‘General view of the former and present state of market gardens, and the quantity of land now occupied for that purpose within twelve miles of London’, The environs of London, Vol. 4 (4 vols., 1796), p. 576. 3 M. Thick, ‘Introduction’, in W. Lawson, ed., A new orchard and garden with The country housewife’s garden (facsimile edition, Totnes, 2003, original, 1618), pp. 15-22; P. Warde, ‘The idea of improvement, c. 1520-1700’ in R. Hoyle, ed., Custom, improvement and the landscape in early modern Britain (2011), 127-48. 4 M. Thick, The Neat House gardens: early market gardening around London (Totnes, 1998), pp. 11- 13; J. Martin, ‘The social and economic origins of the Vale of Evesham market gardening industry’, AgHR, 33:1 (1985), 41-50; F. Beavington, ‘Early market gardening in Bedfordshire’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37 (1965), 91-100; J. Cottis, Agrarian change in the Vale of the White Horse, 1660-1760, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading (1984), p. 263. 5 Unattributed, 'Economic history: Farm-gardening and market gardening', in P. Croot, ed., A history of the county of Middlesex: Vol. 12 Chelsea (2004), p. 150, www.british-history.ac.uk, last accessed 8 July 2017; Beavington, ‘Early market gardening in Bedfordshire’, pp. 91-6.

1

Yet modern scholars have shown little interest in commercial horticulture either as a subject in its own right or in contributing to debates in agriculture, business history, women’s occupations, or land tenure. This has been attributed to gardeners’ business accounts not surviving and the difficulty caused by the long-term use of the term ‘gardener’ to encompass many different functions, both domestic and commercial.6 Joan Thirsk considered part of the problem was the absence of commercial gardening as a separate category in government agricultural statistics until 1872, resulting in the industry’s earlier contribution to the economy being overlooked.7

In 1997, and again in 2007, Thirsk called for historians to ‘discover more’ about market gardening, noting that, ‘All the developments … deserve closer investigation since large generalities pass over the fine points in the story’.8 This study responds to Thirsk’s appeal in the form of a microhistory of commercial gardening based in the parishes of Fulham and Hammersmith, Middlesex, for the period 1680-1861, and adds a quantitative dimension that has not been found in most studies.9 Quantitative evidence, derived from previously unused sources including fire insurance policies and bankruptcy notices, forms a robust base, enhanced by links to qualitative sources, reveals an in-depth picture of gardeners and garden businesses over 180 years. This combination produces new information, and breathes life into their stories.

6 J. Uings, Gardens and gardening in a fast-changing urban environment: Manchester 1750-1850, unpublished PhD, Manchester Metropolitan University (2013), pp. 30-2; J. Harvey, Early nurserymen (Chichester, 1974), p. 1; M. Thick ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’, in J. Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales, Vol. 5, 1640-1750: II Agrarian change (Cambridge, 1985), p. 521; J. Burnby and A. Robinson, Now turned into fair garden plots (Stow) (1983), p. 3. 7 J. Thirsk, Alternative Agriculture: A History: From the Black Death to the Present Day (Oxford, 1997), p. 174; L. Bennett, The horticultural industry of Middlesex (University of Reading, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Miscellaneous Studies No. 7, 1952), pp. 15-18. 8 J. Thirsk, Food in early modern England: Phases, fads and fashions 1500-1760 (2007), pp. 330, 332; idem, Alternative agriculture, pp. 174-5. 9 Until 1834 the parish of Fulham comprised both Fulham and Hammersmith. R. Pooley, ‘Hammersmith government’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), p. 239. For the adoption of a microhistorical approach see page 30.

2

Fulham parish, which included Hammersmith, had the largest acreage of commercial gardening in England in 1796, supplying London, the largest market.10 Locating the research in this parish bridges the gap between the generalities of national and regional surveys and the restricted view from the small acreages in existing local studies. The c. 1,200 acres of gardens, orchards and nurseries in the parish in the mid-nineteenth century are sufficient to explore general themes, while the parish location permits sources to be nominally linked. This is not intended to be a study of the parish rather it is an examination of the industry in a parish.11

The aim of the research is to address two seemingly simple questions, ‘What was a gardener?’, and ‘What was a garden business?’ as so far answers have proved elusive. Four topics are examined in order to inform these questions: first establishing the changes in the spatial distribution and acreage of gardens in the parish; then examining the occupational structure of the industry found in five sources; thirdly the influence of landlords, tenants and tenure on operating gardens; and finally, exploring the business of gardening. I argue that from the early eighteenth century garden businesses should not be viewed just as market gardens or nurseries. Each business not only cultivated a diversity of horticultural products, but they are found to have had a variety of other agricultural interests and economic pursuits. Tracing gardening occupations through several sources shows that the range and specificity of descriptors was dependent on the source. Records created by parish and government bodies relied on a few customary terms for much longer than occupations found in personal or business sources, demonstrating how reliance on one source can be misleading. Most sources direct the focus of the study towards employers and family businesses, therefore employees are given less consideration. Through statistical analysis of sources with occupational descriptors, not previously used in studies of gardening, and linked to a wide range of other documents, it is

10 Lysons, ‘General view’, p. 576. 11 This last phrase is adapted from B. Reay, Microhistories: demography, society and culture in rural England, 1800-1930 (Cambridge, 1996), p. 260.

3

shown that the previously perceived barriers to research can be addressed. New knowledge of this economic sector is presented in this, the most in-depth study of commercial gardening to date.

This introduction gives a brief explanation of terminology followed by an examination of the historiography of commercial gardening around London. An assessment of the gaps in knowledge lead to the research questions that will be considered. The methodology and the primary sources that have been utilised are then discussed. Finally, a description of Fulham and Hammersmith provides a context for the research.

TERMINOLOGY Interpreting contemporaries’ use of the term ‘gardener’ has not been a straightforward matter for historians. ‘Garden’ was defined in 1587 as ‘all such grounds as are wrought with the spade by man’s hand’, the so-called ‘gardening method’ of production.12 This distinguished gardening from agricultural practices that used a plough, and this distinction is applied in this study. For several hundred years until the nineteenth century the term ‘gardener’ encompassed many occupations that are now referred to more precisely, including nurseryman, seedsman, florist, market gardener, the head gardeners responsible for the kitchen and pleasure gardens of the gentry, as well as domestic gardeners growing foodstuff primarily for home consumption, or tending small ornamental gardens, and jobbing gardeners or garden labourers working in domestic or commercial gardens, both men and women.13 These occupations need not be distinct; an individual could undertake several gardening occupations, either together or over a lifetime.14 There were also

12 W. Harrison, The description of Elizabethan England. The classic contemporary account of Tudor social life, G. Edelen, ed., (Washington, DC and New York, NY, 1994), p. 264. The spellings ‘gardiner’ or ‘gardner’ are found frequently but the modern form will be used throughout except in direct quotations. 13 Harvey, Early nurserymen, p. 1. 14 R. Webber, Market gardening: the history of commercial flower, fruit and vegetable growing (Newton Abbot, 1972), p. 65; Uings, Gardens and gardening, p. 45.

4

farmer-gardeners who raised a vegetable crop after their main arable crop was harvested, or combined some acreage worked by gardening methods with traditional farming production, and were a feature of open-field commercial gardening in Middlesex.15 Reaching a better understanding of the concept of ‘gardener’ is a focus of this study and the use of the term will be discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters. For clarity in this study the modern terms that distinguish the various roles given above will be used, notwithstanding that in the period referred to they may not have been in common, or possibly any, usage. Thus, market gardening, commercial gardening, nurseries, horticulture, and simply, gardening, will be used to refer to the production by gardening methods of orchard fruit, soft fruit, vegetables, nursery products and seeds for sale at market, while kitchen, pleasure, estate, and domestic gardening will indicate non-commercial gardening.

The use of the word ‘Fulham’ also needs clarification. In 1834 the old parish of Fulham, which included Hammersmith, was split into two parishes, Fulham and Hammersmith. This legalised a long-standing informal administrative separation in the parish between what was known as the ‘Fulham side’ and the ‘Hammersmith side’.16 Here, reference to ‘the parish’ and ‘Fulham’ up to 1834 will comprise both Fulham and Hammersmith. It was not until the 1851 census that Fulham was considered administratively to be part of ‘London’.17 Prior to this date, in addition to the City of London, Westminster, and Southwark, London had an expanding suburban area that was part of Middlesex, Essex or Surrey.18 In this study ‘London’

15 Unattributed, ‘Economic history’, pp. 150-5; Lysons, ‘General view’, pp. 573-6. 16 Pooley, ‘Hammersmith government’, p. 239. From at least 1650 the ‘Fulham side’ and the ‘Hammersmith side’ had separate vestries under All Saints Church, Fulham: the same areas were retained when the two new parishes were established in 1834. 17 Areas included were Paddington, Kensington, Fulham, Chelsea, St George Hanover Square, Westminster, Marylebone, Hampstead, Pancras, Islington, Hackney, St Giles, Strand, Holborn, London City, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Whitechapel, St George in the East, Stepney, Mile End Old Town, Poplar, St Saviour, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Camberwell, Greenwich, Lewisham and Woolwich, www.genuki.org.uk, last accessed 10 November 2015. 18 From 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works had some power over a wide area that included Fulham.

5

will be used to indicate the urban area outside the City of London. For clarity, parish or village names will be used wherever possible.

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF COMMERCIAL GARDENING AROUND LONDON Commercial gardening is a neglected aspect of the history of gardening, and market gardening has been characterised by Malcolm Thick as the ‘Cinderella of gardening history, or perhaps to call it the Ugly Sister would be more descriptive’.19 In his lecture, ‘The hidden face of British gardening’, Roderick Floud considered the ‘neglected ... gardening industry’ and included all aspects of gardening, ‘even the makers of garden gnomes’, yet he intentionally omitted any reference to market gardening.20 This partiality is also reflected in Brent Elliott’s monograph on the historiography of garden history in which just over one of its 92 pages is devoted to ‘Commercial gardens’.21 These approaches are not uncommon. Secondary sources particularly for market gardening are fragmentary, with few scholarly books or theses on the subject. Usually it forms a chapter, but often only a few paragraphs in a book, or is published as a journal article.22 Scholars have taken an interest predominantly in studies of nurseries that supplied trees and plants to the estates of the nobility and were documented in household accounts, received recognition from

19 Thick, The Neat House, p. 11. 20 R. Floud, ‘The hidden face of British gardening’, (Lecture given at Gresham College, London, 12 May 2011), www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-hidden-face-of-british-gardening, last accessed 6 November 2011. Thanks are due to Zoe Crisp, Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge for bringing this lecture to my attention. 21 B. Elliott, ‘The development and present state of garden history’, Occasional papers from the RHS Lindley Library, 9 (December, 2012), pp. 69-70. 22 Other publications exist but omit footnotes, for example, Webber, Market gardening; E. Willson, ‘Farming, nursery and market gardening’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith (1965), 88- 100.

6

contemporary writers, or appear in records that survive for a few of the larger nursery companies.23

This literature review gives an overview of the current state of scholars’ studies of commercial gardening around London, where commercialisation and specialisation occurred earlier than elsewhere and Londoners ‘caught first sight of the latest opportunities and gimmicks’.24 First it will consider the major contributors to commercial gardening history and then focus on the topics which form each chapter. Studies of gardening outside London will be referred to only where they offer a valuable insight.

Five scholars, John Harvey, Joan Thirsk, Malcolm Thick, David Marsh, and, for Fulham and Hammersmith, Eleanor Willson, have been responsible for most of the corpus of knowledge about commercial gardening. Thirsk takes primarily a national perspective, while only Thick, and to a lesser extent Marsh, concentrate on market gardening, with the focus of Harvey and Willson being towards nurseries. Following Thirsk’s call for more research on market gardening, recent studies suggest that the tide may be turning. These include Julia Matheson’s study of open ground in East London which has a chapter on market gardens and large nursery gardens, and my own dissertation which was a microhistory of a market garden in eighteenth-century Fulham which became part of a fraud case in Chancery.25 Chapters in Clare Greener’s thesis consider both commercial gardeners and those working in estate

23 E. Willson, James Lee and the Vineyard nursery (1961); Harvey, Early nurserymen; J. Harvey, ‘The stocks held by early nurseries’, AgHR, 22 (1974), pp. 18-35; J. Drake, Wood and Ingram: A Huntingdonshire nursery 1742-1950 (Over, 2008). Thanks to Dr Evelyn Lord, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge for bringing this to my attention; J. Collins, The key of the fields: the Lobjoits and Covent Garden market (1990); D. Solman, Loddiges of Hackney: the largest hothouse in the world (1995); B. Elliott, ‘Commercial horticulture in Victorian London’, in M. Galinou, ed., London’s pride: the glorious history of the capital’s gardens (1990), 168-77. 24 Thirsk, Food in early modern England, pp. 44, 56. 25 J. Matheson, Common ground: horticulture and the cultivation of open space in the East End of London, 1840-1900, unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University (2010); B. Rough, The operation of a small business in Fulham, London, c. 1760-1800, unpublished MSt dissertation, University of Cambridge (2010).

7

gardens in nineteenth-century Devon, including some analysis of the 1841-91 censuses, while Joy Uings’ research on all types of gardening in Manchester from 1750 to 1850 also includes a chapter on commercial gardens.26

Harvey and Willson highlight the tendency of historians of commercial gardening to place considerable reliance on a limited number of contemporary printed sources that can be anecdotal, impressionistic, or derivative.27 Willson characterises their uncritical confidence in the veracity of contemporary ‘authorities’ as ‘mindless repetition [whereby] the reader is dulled into accepting what [was written] as fact’.28 The studies of Thirsk, Harvey, Thick, Marsh and Willson, which concentrate mainly on the early modern period, are outlined here and will be referred to later where they inform specific themes.

Joan Thirsk’s studies discuss commercial horticulture in the context of diversification in agriculture, based on many sources including recipes, paintings, news-sheets, and contemporary writings.29 She identified 1500 to 1760 as a period of expansion in gardening having been preceded by ‘a period of affluence for the rich … sparking their curiosity’ to seek new foods and consequently stimulating growth, especially in London.30 Other trends contributed to this development: scientific interest in botany; a fashion for gardening; publication of books on gardening; contacts with foreign food and cultures in overseas exploration, and ‘a maturing food market offering strong commercial incentives’.31 Her contributions combine to form a theoretical basis for progress in the industry.

26 R. C. Greener, The rise of the professional gardener in nineteenth-century Devon: A social and economic history, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Exeter (2009); Uings, Gardens and gardening. 27 E. Willson, ‘Commercial gardening records: 1. The records of nurserymen’, Archives, 12 (1976), pp. 122-4; J. Harvey, ‘Vegetables in the middle ages’, Garden History, 12 (1984), p. 89. 28 Willson, Commercial gardening records, p. 122. 29 Thirsk, Alternative agriculture, chapter 2; idem, Food in early modern England. 30 Thirsk, Food in early modern England, pp. 330-1; idem, Alternative agriculture, p. 17. 31 Thirsk, Food in early modern England, p. 294.

8

John Harvey was a most prolific author who between 1965 and 1997 wrote about garden history in its widest sense. For nursery gardening he focussed on locating plants in lists and catalogues, sales invoices, probate documents and contemporary printed books, dating from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, in order to validate the timing of plant introductions. He concentrated on decorative plants and trees, but also included fruit trees and vegetables.32 Of interest to this study is his research on the specialisation of gardening into nurseries and seed growing, mainly in London, and enumerating and describing nurseries, which he argued had begun by at least the late sixteenth century, and possibly from the Dissolution.33 Harvey was a ‘pioneer’ in this subject and remains the authority on nursery gardens.34

For the most comprehensive coverage of the history of market gardening prior to 1800 we must look to the work of Malcolm Thick, author of the wide-ranging chapter on market gardening in The agrarian history of England and Wales 1640- 1750.35 He extends existing knowledge with new research based on probate documents, quarter sessions records, City of London repertories, returns of aliens, port books, and catalogues. This overview dates the start of the industry in London by c.1550.36 Gardening expansion is linked to several factors: the diffusion of new techniques brought by Dutch immigrants in the mid-sixteenth century; improved technical efficiency including pioneering row cultivation; multiple cropping and the heavy use of manure; supplying root vegetables for the poor; and innovation to satisfy new consumer tastes.37 Thick argues that ‘by demonstrating garden practices and crops which could also be grown in the field, commercial horticulture stimulated

32 Harvey, Early nurserymen; J. Harvey, Early gardening catalogues (1972). 33 Harvey, Early nurserymen, pp. 39-40. For a complete bibliography of John Harvey’s lifetime’s work on garden history see, J.H. Harvey, ‘Published writings by John Hooper Harvey (1911-97) on garden history and related topics’, Garden History, 26 (1998), 102-5. This mentions that he produced 575 publications in his lifetime; many were about medieval architecture and he did not begin publishing on garden history until 1965. 34 D. Marsh, The gardens and gardeners of later Stuart London, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (2004), p. 380. 35 Thick, ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’, pp. 503-32. 36 Ibid., p. 503. 37 Ibid., pp. 505-6, 508-9.

9

agricultural progress’, and increased the amount of food available.38 By 1610 root crops to feed poor Londoners were mainly produced in the Fulham open fields by farmer-gardeners using Dutch methods of cultivation, although Harvey thinks the contribution by the Dutch has been overstated.39 Specialisation into seed growing to supply London merchants was established in Sandwich by 1650 and continued through the eighteenth century. Although production was risky, it could be a profitable venture.40 In 1710 The Tatler reported on the demand from the rich for out of season vegetables, and by 1727 gardeners in some areas around London had begun to specialise in ‘superior’ vegetables to stimulate this market.41

In his seminal book on gardening around London and at the Neat House gardens in Pimlico, Thick refers to gardens as ‘capitalist market-oriented agriculture … from the start’, where innovation was demand led by population growth and the eighteenth-century consumer revolution.42 He considers that the expansion of gardening around London was partly a response to bad harvests at the end of the sixteenth century and, as their high profitability became apparent, grain-growing land was converted to gardens.43 Expansion continued through the eighteenth century with new produce and methods of cultivation.44 His research on the 107 acres of commercial gardens at Neat House in the early modern period, arguably the most profitable gardens in London, is based on the papers of their landlord, the duke of Westminster.45 Thick remains the pre-eminent historian of market gardening.

38 Thick, 'Market gardening in England and Wales', pp. 531-2. 39 M. Thick, ‘Root crops and the feeding of London’s poor in the late sixteenth an early seventeenth centuries’, in J. Chartres and D. Hey, eds., English rural society 1500-1800, (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 285, 293-4, J. Harvey, ‘Vegetables in the Middle Ages’, Garden History, 12:2 (1984), p. 89. 40 M. Thick, ‘Garden seeds in England before the late eighteenth century – I. Seed growing’, AgHR, 38:1 (1990), pp. 60-1, 66-7. 41 M. Thick, ‘ “Superior vegetables” Greens and roots in London 1660-1750’, in G. Mars and V. Mars eds., Food, culture and history, Vol. 1 (1993), pp. 142-6. 42 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 12-13, 25, 39. 43 Ibid., pp. 22, 47, 49. 44 Ibid., pp. 25, 49. 45 Ibid., pp. 1, 161-3.

10

David Marsh’s study of all gardening in later Stuart London includes two extensive chapters on commercial gardening.46 Using qualitative and quantitative analysis he addresses the growth of the industry and business aspects based on the Worshipful Company of Gardeners’ membership, probate records, chancery court documents and other sources showing occupations. In a sample of 12 parishes around the City and London, predominantly between 1632 and 1695, he identified 957 gardeners of whom only 1 in 10 were Gardeners’ Company members.47 Linking 798 testamentary records of gardeners in London, Middlesex and north Surrey to other nominal records he shows the importance of long-term credit to small-scale gardeners, and examines their investment in stocks and housing. 48 Marsh found that many met Earle’s definition of the middling sort in the early eighteenth century, while a few had wealth of several thousand pounds.49 The study is notable in showing wives to be the principal heirs of gardens and to be active in running businesses.50 His results present a diversified industry of innovative nurserymen and market gardeners, but the majority of their employees were poor labourers of low social status.51

In her role as archivist at Fulham and Hammersmith archives Eleanor Willson acquired an exceptional knowledge of nurseries and nurserymen in west London, resulting in several publications including her monograph on the Lee family’s Vineyard nursery in Fulham.52 When considering the location of commercial gardens in Hammersmith she found that between Lysons’ account in 1795 and the 1845 tithe

46 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, chapters 6 and 7, pp. 363-492. 47 Ibid., pp. 371-7. The parishes were St. Giles, Cripplegate, Kensington, Hammersmith, Chiswick, Wandsworth, Southwark Christ Church, Clerkenwell, Deptford, Barnes, Chelsea, Stepney and Shoreditch. He found 20 gardeners in Hammersmith and none were members of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners, (hereafter the Gardeners’ Company), the livery company regulating the gardening industry in London. 48 Ibid., pp. 438-9, 447-66. 49 Ibid., p. 446. Earle’s definition of the middling sort is discussed in chapter 5, p. 242. 50 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 465-6. 51 Ibid., pp. 484-8, 491-2. 52 Willson, James Lee; Willson, ‘Commercial gardening records’, pp. 121-6; E. Willson, West London nursery gardens. The nursery gardens of Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith, Kensington and a part of Westminster, founded before 1900 (1982); idem, Nurserymen to the world: The nursery gardens of Woking and north-west Surrey and plants introduced by them (Reading, 1989).

11

apportionment survey arable land had decreased while gardens and orchards had increased.53 Her focus, however, was on identifying nurseries and nurserymen, with limited consideration of market gardening.

Despite the relevance of the technical efficiency achieved on market gardens to debates about general agricultural progress, reference to studies on agricultural cultivation has not been included in the historiography. As there is limited space this study will be restricted to addressing commercial gardening from a business perspective, and consideration of the horticultural methods employed in the production of fruit and vegetables will be excluded, unless they are relevant to a point in the discussion. For those interested in these aspects John Harvey has documented the introduction of new plants and Malcolm Thick has considered the techniques used in market gardening.54

For more detailed explanation of the horticultural techniques employed reference should be made to contemporary writers, Blanche Henrey’s history and bibliography of horticulture to 1800 being a good starting point.55 The works of ‘improvers’ such as Richard Bradley in the early-eighteenth, and Richard Weston in the later- eighteenth century, disseminated information about gardening techniques, as did general publications such as The Gentleman’s Magazine, and gardening

53 Willson, ‘Farming, nursery and market gardening’, pp. 88-9. 54 J. Harvey Early nurserymen (Chichester, 1974); idem, Early gardening catalogues (1972); Thick, The Neat House, Chapter 3; M. Thick ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’, in J. Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales, Vol. 5, 1640-1750: II Agrarian change (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 503-32. 55 B. Henrey, British botanical and horticultural literature before 1800 comprising a history and bibliography of botanical and horticultural books in print in England, Scotland, and Ireland from the earliest times until 1800 (1975). J. Francis, ‘ “A ffitt place for any Gentleman”? Gardens, gardeners and gardening in England and Wales, c. 1560-1660’, unpublished PhD dissertation University of Birmingham (2011), Chapter 1, includes commentary on early gardening books c1558-1660.

12

journals.56 J.C. Loudon’s An encyclopaedia of gardening in the nineteenth century is also useful.57 Mention has already been made of the reliance on digging by spade in commercial gardens. This was accompanied by hoeing and weeding by hand, and the wide range of hand tools used in gardens for grafting and pruning fruit and the cultivation of specific crops, indicating the breadth and nature of gardening has been documented.58 Market gardens produced multiple crops each year using elaborate rotations based on row cultivation, and were dependent on irrigation and heavy manuring to maintain soil fertility.59 Gardeners increased profitability by growing under glass and the use of hot beds to extend the growing season, techniques documented by John Middleton in his View of the agriculture of Middlesex.60

This summary of the contribution of the main historians has demonstrated the breadth of their research. A few topics, such as the role of the Gardeners’ Company, seed production, and growing root crops or ‘superior’ vegetables, have received detailed consideration, with the emphasis on the early modern period. This study will consider the following four topics in greater depth, the spatial distribution of commercial gardens; the occupational structure of the industry in Fulham and Hammersmith; the role of landlords, tenants and tenure; and the business of gardening. The gardening historiography for each chapter is now reviewed.

56 R. Bradley, A general treatise of husbandry and gardening (2 vols, 1726); idem, A philosophical account of the works of nature (1721); idem, The gentleman and gardener’s Kalendar, directing what is necessary to be done every month in the kitchen-garden, fruit garden, nursery (3rd edn., 1720); R. Weston, Tracts on practical agriculture and gardening (1773); Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener; Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. 57 J.C. Loudon, An encyclopaedia of gardening (1835). 58 J. Evelyn, Elysium Britannicum, or The royal gardens, J. Ingram (ed.) (original m/s 1620-1706; Philadelphia, PA, 2001); K. Sanecki, Old garden tools (Princes Risborough, 2004). 59 ‘Double and treble cropping’, Agricultural Journal and Transactions of the Lower Canada Agricultural Society, 1 (Montreal, 1848), pp. 328-9; 60 ‘J. Middleton, View of the agriculture of Middlesex; with observations on the means of its improvement and several essays on agriculture in general (1798).

13

The spatial distribution of commercial gardens Contemporary commentators estimated the extent of the gardening industry in London and Middlesex but comparison is problematic as they rarely coincide in the period, location, or the measure used. They suggest acreage rose in the seventeenth century and then slightly decreased in the nineteenth century, with an approximate consensus of between 9,500 and 11,500 acres for 1660 to 1811. Their evidence base is not always clear and some may have included both intensive market gardens and extensive farming-gardening. A category for horticulture was first introduced in government agricultural statistics in 1872, when Middlesex had 8,076 acres, by which time the progress of the industry moving out of London was well underway.61

The origins of the industry remain uncertain. Using evidence from contemporary authors, wills and inventories, David Marsh places the development of gardening during the mid-seventeenth century. He identifies a transitional phase when gardening was a part of small-scale, mixed farming with specialised market gardens not appearing until the eighteenth century, although Thick remarks that farmer- gardeners were still operating in Fulham in 1796.62 The general locations of gardening areas at different times have been identified. In records from the Middlesex sessions between 1607 and 1620 J. Burnby and Audrey Robinson found gardeners mentioned in Clerkenwell, Whitechapel, Chelsea and Shoreditch.63 The transition from arable and pasture to gardening ought to be discernible in leases, for instance a 1636 lease in Edmonton, north London, mentions that four acres of land had changed from farming to an orchard.64 Leases indicate that from the seventeenth century the open fields were being converted to gardens in Chelsea, and early in the

61 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 45-7, 53; Bennett, The horticultural industry, pp. 17-18. The 1801 Home Office Acreage returns did not have a category for horticultural products. 62 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 380-2; Thick, The Neat House, pp. 47, 53. 63 Burnby and Robinson, Now turned into fair garden plots, p. 4. 64 Ibid., p. 6.

14

eighteenth century pasture was ploughed up for gardens despite incurring a financial penalty.65

Table 1.1 Parishes with the largest acreage under market gardens within 10 miles of London in 1792 (after D. Lysons, Environs of London (1792)).

Area Acreage % of total Fulham and 2175 25.70 Hammersmith West Ham 700 7.96 Kensington 590 6.71 East Ham 570 6.48 Deptford St. Paul 500 5.69 Isleworth 430 4.89 Barking 400 4.55 Battersea 300 3.41 Chiswick 280 3.18 Total 5,945 67.63% Total garden acreage within 10 miles of 8,790 London (Barnes & Mortlake 150) (Neat House, Pimlico* 107) (Edmonton 27)

Source: Thick, The Neat House, pp. 56, 85. Note: * Acreage in 1675. The places in brackets give the acreages considered in local studies by M. Brown, The market gardens of Barnes and Mortlake (1985), Thick, The Neat House, and Burnby and Robinson, Now turned into fair garden plots, and are included for comparison.

65 Unattributed, 'Economic history’, pp. 150-5; Unattributed, 'Settlement and building: Chelsea up to 1680', in P. Croot, ed., A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 12, Chelsea (2004), pp. 14-26.

15

Table 1.1 gives the top nine parishes in order of gardening acreage in 1792 extracted from Thick’s compilation of Lysons’ estimates.66 It shows that a quarter of all gardening acreage around London was located in Fulham, the remainder being predominantly in east London or parishes adjacent to Fulham. Lysons commented that Fulham was said to be the largest parochial acreage of market gardening in England.67

Areas of specialisation in Middlesex in 1800 are identified by G. Bull. In Isleworth and Brentford orchards were under-planted with soft fruit; from Fulham to Staines osier beds lined the river banks; the open fields of Fulham, Hammersmith, and Chelsea grew rotations of barley, wheat and vegetables; and in Twickenham and Hampton market gardens existed among mansion houses.68 In the early nineteenth century commercial gardens stretched for 15 miles from Bow in east London to Hampton in the west, situated mainly on the Thames terrace gravels, and an area to the north east around Edmonton as shown in map 1.1.69 The industry’s decline was beginning in west London as urban development reduced the area of gardens at Chelsea by 167 acres between 1664 and 1792.70

In the early nineteenth century Heinrich von Thunen devised a theory about the location of agricultural production in relation to the market. Different types of cultivation would occur in concentric rings around a city dependent on the relationship between transport costs, the cost of land and achievable profits. It predicts that intensive cultivation such as market gardening and milk production

66 Thick, The Neat House, p. 565, citing D. Lysons, The environs of London (4 vols., 1792), I, pp. 27, 68, 257, 350, II, pp. 28, 71, 345, IV, pp. 573-6. Figures in parentheses at the foot of the table are acreages for other areas, mentioned in secondary literature, for comparison. 67 Lysons, ‘General view’, p. 576. 68 G. Bull, ‘Thomas Milne’s land utilization map of London’, Geographical Journal, 122:1 (1956), p. 29. 69 Ibid, p. 29; P. Atkins, Animal cities: beastly urban histories (Farnham, 2012), p. 55. Atkins has redrawn the information in Bull’s 1957 unpublished PhD. 70 Thick, The Neat House, p. 53.

16

Map 1.1 Land use in London in the first decade of the nineteenth century.

Fulham

Source: Atkins, Animal cities, p. 55. would be located closest to the centre and would extend further from the centre along a river where one existed. The model has been criticised for its ideal geography and because it was not sufficiently sensitive to apply to a detailed analysis.71

In his review of von Thunen’s theory E.A. Wrigley agrees that market gardening, fruit-growing, and milk production would be nearest to the centre but argues that it

71 Bull, ‘Thomas Milne's land utilization map’, pp. 25-30; D. Waugh, Geography: an integrated approach (2nd edn., Walton-on-Thames, 1995), pp. 430-35; J-P. Rodrigue, The von Thunen model, www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/software/vonthunen.asp, last accessed 10 August 2011; P. Atkins, ‘The charmed circle: von Thunen and agriculture around London in the nineteenth century’, Geography, 72:2 (1987), pp. 129-39.

17

was determined by ‘perishability rather than transport cost’.72 The productivity of the Neat House gardens, however, has been attributed by Thick to their Thames-side location which facilitated and minimised the cost of transporting produce and manure by river.73 Peter Atkins also frames the location of market gardens around London in terms of the availability of manure and proximity to transport. He describes a system in which animal dung from the city was removed to the peri-urban areas of London, where it was used to maintain soil fertility in market gardens, the produce then being taken back into London for sale. Initially the radius for carting manure was 5-10 miles, gradually widening as roads improved, and expanding to 50 miles using railways. The cost of transport affected the profitability of produce, the theory being that the most expensive items grown by intensive methods, and therefore requiring the most manure, were grown nearest to the city; produce grown by less intensive methods would be more distant, with farming-gardening furthest away. The locations serving London were extended by the availability of river and canal transport but the rising cost of land, urban development and the availability of railways hastened their decline.74 Despite the availability of land-use maps scholars have not yet used them in a statistical analysis of the changing extent and locations of commercial gardens around London.

The occupational structure of commercial gardening The earliest form of gardening was undertaken by farmer-gardeners. Before this term was introduced c. 1796 they were probably called ‘husbandmen’, ‘farmers’ or ‘gardeners’ in records, indicating the occupational ambiguity arising as agriculture incorporated gardening methods. Specialisation followed and eventually new terminology emerged.75 Horticulture took place in ‘garden ground’, while specific

72 E.A. Wrigley, The path to sustained growth (2014), p. 133. 73 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 55-6. 74 Atkins, Animal cities, pp. 53-60. 75 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 380-2; Thick, The Neat House, pp. 47, 53.

18

crops were raised in ‘radish ground’, ‘carrot ground’, and ‘mellon ground’.76 It has been suggested that ‘gardener’ meant market gardener during the seventeenth century but this is probably too narrow a view.77 John Evelyn referred to ‘market gardener’ in The Compleat Gard’ner (1693) but it became popular around the time Lysons used it in 1796, for instance, in sales advertisements in newspapers and testimony at the Old Bailey.78 The confusion over occupational titles was evident in Edmonton where an individual’s occupation could vary between husbandman or gardener, or gardener and labourer, at different times in parish registers, and Janie Cottis found gardener and husbandman interchangeable in Oxfordshire.79 Burnby and Robinson summarise the situation well, commenting that ‘the inexactitude with which titles were bestowed … obscures our view of the horticultural scene’.80

For several hundred years the term ‘gardener’ covered a diversity of skills and social status, both for employers and employees.81 ‘Nurseries’ were first mentioned in 1556 with ‘nurserymen’ occurring in 1629, reputedly having started as a ‘sideline’ in vegetable gardens and orchards, then developing into specialist nurseries during the later seventeenth century.82 It was commonplace for nurserymen to begin learning their trade in the gardens of the nobility, then establishing their own nurseries to become plant suppliers.83 James Lee, who became a distinguished nurseryman in Hammersmith, first trained with Philip Miller at the Chelsea physic garden, then he was employed at Syon House, in west London, and later worked for the duke of

76 Beavington, ‘Early market gardening’, p. 93; The proceedings of the Old Bailey, trial of Michael Lawley, 1797 (t17970215-53), www.oldbaileyonline.org, last accessed 13 July 2017; Strange v. Harris, 1775-1783, TNA, C108/83. 77 Unattributed, ‘Economic history’, pp. 150-55. 78 J. de la Quintinie, The compleat gard’ner, trans. J. Evelyn (1693), p.a* [First page of Preface]; D. Lysons, ‘General view’, pp. 573-76; Advertisement of market garden in Bethnal Green for sale, The Times (March 18, 1799), p. 4; Old Bailey, trial of William Wilson, 1796 (t17960406-78). 79 Burnby and Robinson, Now turned into fair garden plots, p. 6; Cottis, Agrarian change, p. 261. 80 Burnby and Robinson, Now turned into fair garden plots, p. 3; Greener, Devon, p. 196. 81 Harvey, Early nurserymen, p. 1; Worshipful Company of Gardiners, Adam Armed (c. 1700), p. 1. 82 Harvey, Early nurserymen, pp. 32, 36; ‘Nursery’, OED Online (Oxford, June 2017), www.oed.com, last accessed 1 September 2017. 83 Harvey, Early nurserymen, p. 37.

19

Argyll at Twickenham.84 Conversely Willson, commenting on the Dancer family who were established as gardeners in Fulham by 1656, noted that, ‘It is likely that the Dancers were market gardeners before they were nurserymen and may have continued both trades together’.85 These observations underpin Burnby and Robinson’s belief that, ‘Unless we have the business records … of a horticulturalist it is dangerous to categorise him too firmly’.86 The issue of diversity of production is pursued further in this study.

Another layer of complexity arose from gardeners who had more than one occupation. Ancillary occupations or by-employments in manufacturing were considered to be common in seventeenth-century agriculture.87 Trade directories for Edmonton, listed gardening in combination with dairying or farming, while at Neat House gardeners were operating beer gardens by the Thames.88 Two studies of gardens outside London have estimated the number of gardeners with by- occupations. J. Martin found that 28 per cent of the 139 male household heads who were market gardeners in the Vale of Evesham in the 1841, 1861, and 1881 censuses also had another occupation.89 The by-employment incidence of 3.4 per cent in 1851 and 1.4 per cent in 1881, found from trade directories and census enumerator’s books for Devon, was much lower than that found by Martin.90 These studies have identified a changing range of occupational descriptors, but the focus has been on qualitative sources, with few attempting to assess quantitatively the structure of the industry.

84 Willson, ‘Farming, nursery and market gardening’, p. 92. 85 E. Willson, ‘Nursery gardening’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), pp. 243-4. 86 Burnby and Robinson, Now turned into fair garden plots, p. 3. 87 J. Thirsk, ‘Seventeenth-century agriculture and social change’, in J. Thirsk, ed., The rural economy of England: Collected essays (1984), p. 211; Harvey, Early nurserymen, p.4. 88 Burnby and Robinson, Now turned into fair garden plots, p. 3; Thick, The Neat House, pp. 95, 129- 30. 89 Martin, ‘Vale of Evesham’, pp. 47-8. 90 Greener, Devon, pp. 196-8.

20

Landlords, tenants and tenure From at least the seventeenth century contemporary authors noted the profitability of gardens and nurseries, and the consequent high rents paid for garden ground in London. Fragmentary evidence in secondary sources supports this claim about rents.91 The availability of good roads or river transport, the quality of the soil, proximity to urban development, and the type and term of the lease were all factors in setting rents, making comparisons difficult, but the trend was for garden rents to be much higher than for arable land.92 In 1622 rents for market gardens and meadow at Neat House were similar at £3 per acre but by 1670 garden ground could reach £6 to £8 per acre while meadow rents had remained static. In 1675 Thames-side gardens had a £2 premium to incorporate the value of alluvial soil and easy access to the river.93

Using entries in the Hammersmith parish valuation books for 1793, 1829, 1845 and 1867 Peter Atherall compared garden land rents with arable and meadow land. While the lowest rental level of arable and garden always coincided, rents for garden land in the upper quartile were consistently double, and frequently almost treble that of arable and meadow.94 A small walled garden in Hammersmith commanded an annual rent of £16 per acre in 1793 while other gardens were £10 to £12 per acre. He argues that Fulham garden rents were cheaper than those in Hammersmith because they were away from the transport routes into London, and suburban development arrived later.95 However, this conclusion overlooks the benefit of a river frontage.

91 P. Atherall, The displacement of market gardening around London by urban growth, 1745-1939, unpublished MLitt dissertation, University of Cambridge, (1976), pp. 37-51; Thick, The Neat House, pp. 117-25 92 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. 46-51. 93 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 86, 118. 94 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. 221-2. Some of the rents in the valuation books were estimates. 95 Ibid., p. 46

21

Marsh suggests that gardening innovations stimulated a steep rise in rents in the second half of the seventeenth century, with land cultivated by intensive methods for specialist crops, or in walled gardens with good fruit trees, attracting premium rents.96 In Bedfordshire in the early nineteenth century garden land that was well manured or ‘well-tended’ could rent for £5-£6 per acre, almost twice the rent given for poorer garden land.97 When Earl Spencer sold part of his estate in Battersea for urban development in 1835 a sale price from £179 to £205 per acre was required to compensate for the high rental income generated from enclosed market gardens, compared to unenclosed garden land fetching £89 to £141 per acre.98 Rental income from gardens was sufficiently high for some to remain ‘long after the value of the land would normally have led to a change in the land use’.99

Gardening on owner-occupied land has received little attention, as most gardeners are considered to have rented their land.100 In Evesham in 1842, 16.6 per cent of gardeners were owner-occupiers, with the remainder renting.101 Maisie Brown notes that in the nineteenth-century tithe apportionment schedule for Mortlake, Surrey, 277 acres owned by 2 freeholders had been rented out to 12 market gardeners.102

Leases protected the landlord’s property by including maintenance and repairing clauses, specifications for the standard of soil fertility, and stipulating the number of fruit trees in orchards.103 Neat House gardeners were required to maintain their boundaries and to keep the Thames embankment in good repair.104 The term of leases at Neat House was reduced to three years in 1675 but shortly afterwards was

96 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 426-8. 97 Beavington, ‘Early market gardening’, p. 97. 98 K. Bailey, The metamorphosis of Battersea, 1800-1914. A building history, unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University (1995), pp. 36, 81. 99 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, p. 211. 100 Bennett, The horticultural industry, p. 24; Matheson, Common ground, p. 87. 101 Martin, ‘Vale of Evesham’, p. 46. 102 M. Brown, The market gardens of Barnes and Mortlake (1985), p. 16. 103 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 92-3, 120-2; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 431. 104 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 92-3.

22

increased to 21 years in response to a fall in profits.105 Atherall examined garden leases in London from 1745 to 1939 to test the hypothesis that they would have a longer term the greater their distance from the ‘suburban frontier’.106 As urban development approached gardening areas some landlords began to issue short term leases or added clauses permitting them to acquire the land for building at short notice. When leases were called in some land was built on quickly, but elsewhere it was not built on for several years.107 He concludes that a general pattern was not discernible and that each piece of land may have ‘responded uniquely’ depending on the condition of the land and the date when suburbanisation arrived.108 Atherall argues that models assessing changes in leases, rents and selling land for development, are usually oversimplified focusing on the ‘economic man’ paradigm, despite it being clear that landlords’ strategies for managing their assets varied.109

Historians have examined the size of individual garden businesses. A garden business could vary from one piece of land to several, often scattered, plots varying in size, in enclosed walled gardens, on hedged plots, or strips in the open-fields.110 The use of intensive and costly production methods meant that, in comparison to farms, the businesses were small, ‘from one to seven acres’ at Neat House in 1675. Two of the businesses increased to 16 acres in 1677, although there was no evidence of the engrossment of gardens in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, either through consolidation of tenanted holdings or the removal of small-scale tenant gardeners.111 From the testamentary records of 154 gardeners and nurserymen around London, between 1650 and 1740, Marsh found that one third gardened under 3 acres, which he considers to be family-run, and 16 per cent had 10 acres or more which

105 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 118-23. 106 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, p. 20. He included 29 leases for Fulham and Hammersmith. 107 Ibid., pp. 2, 4-6; Bennett, The horticultural industry, p. 24. 108 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, p. 2. 109 Ibid., Introduction, unpaginated. 110 Harvey, ‘The stocks held by early nurseries’, p. 19; Thick, The Neat House, pp. 93-4; Unattributed, ‘Economic history’, pp. 150-5. 111 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 93, 118-25.

23

were often run on a ‘rentier basis’ or partly sub-let. Larger acreages were in more outlying areas where a business included land for grazing or other types of agriculture. His comments are tentative as the evidence available was ‘random in nature’ making it difficult to establish general trends.112 Martin encountered similar difficulties in assessing the size of gardens in Evesham in the 1840s. Many were very small and land was fragmented among numerous people, the median acreage being 2.5 acres.113 At Sandy, Bedfordshire, where gardens supplied London with root vegetables, the average size was estimated to be 8.5 acres in 1841.114 During the mid- nineteenth century, in documents relating to businesses that were bought for conversion into a public park in east London, Matheson found a wider range of garden sizes but most were under 20 acres and some as small as 5 acres.115 Historians’ attention has been focussed on leasehold and more investigation is needed about the extent of owner-occupation and influence of other types of tenure.

The business of gardening Commercial gardens were referred to as businesses and can be considered in the context of concepts used in business history such as profitability, family firms, succession, and dynasties.116 Thick likens the gardens at Neat House to small artisanal workshops in that they were small scale and intensive; it was high volume production from small areas of predominantly rented land, using a large hired labour force. Their location was more dependent on proximity to a market than to the

112 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 424-5. 113 Martin, ‘Vale of Evesham’, pp. 45-6. 114 F. Beavington, ‘The development of market gardening in Bedfordshire, 1799-1939’, AgHR, 23:1 (1975), p. 28. This area served London with root crops. 115 Matheson, Common ground, pp. 88, 95, 100. Present day Victoria Park covers 295 acres in Tower Hamlets. 116 Thick, The Neat House, p. 13; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 427, 435, 447; Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 4-7; W. Rubel, ‘But, Did the English eat their vegetables?, A look at English kitchen gardens and the cookery they imply (1650-1800)’, in S. Friedland, ed., Vegetables, Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium of food and cookery, 2008 (Totnes, 2009), p. 187; M. Turner, J. Beckett and B. Afton, Farm production in England, 1700-1914 (Oxford, 2001), p. 27; Matheson, Common ground, pp. 19-20.

24

suitability of the soils, and gardeners were innovative.117 Matheson’s comparison of Victorian gardens with manufacturing industry suggests that gardens were similarly ‘characterised by flexible specialisation’. The proximity of garden businesses to each other, and contact between gardeners at market, promoted exchanges of information and they could adapt quickly, incorporating new techniques, or new foods that became fashionable.118 Alongside family firms other financial structures, such as partnerships, were introduced.119 These can be seen in Fulham garden businesses: Kennedy and Lee began their nursery in 1745; Bagley and Whitlock, and Rough and Maynard, had market gardens in the 1780s; and Whitley, Brames and Milne operated a nursery between 1810 and 1833.120

Studies by Thick and Marsh provide evidence of the wealth of London gardeners.121 Marsh used 83 probate inventories and 752 wills to examine the wealth of gardeners around London between 1639 and 1767.122 While accepting that using probate evidence to assess wealth was not without its problems, especially the over- representation of the middling sort, he suggests that in the absence of business accounts it was ‘arguably the best indication of financial standing available’.123 Sixty-seven per cent of gardeners had an estate valued at £100 or under, compared to 77 per cent of his sample of non-gentry Londoners, while 5 per cent of gardeners’ estates were over £1,000 compared to 2 per cent of non-gentry, indicating that gardeners who left wills were a wealthier section of the middling sort.124 In comparison the fortune of Henry Wise of the Brompton nursery in west London was extraordinary. Formerly gardener to the bishop of London and later to Queen Anne,

117 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 12-13; Matheson, Common ground, p. 21. 118 Matheson, Common ground, pp. 99-100. 119 Rough, The operation of a small business, pp. 5, 18-24; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 161; Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 3, 9, 25, 43. 120 Willson, James Lee (1961), p. 8; idem, West London nursery gardens, pp. 26, 75. 121 Thick, The Neat House; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners. 122 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 447. The wills were predominantly between 1650 and 1740. 123 Ibid., p. 452. 124 Ibid., p. 453. Gardeners n=81, non-gentry n=209.

25

from his will he was ‘worth £100,000’ at his death in 1738.125 However, only a very few nurserymen who supplied the elite had the opportunity ‘to rise to the top of the financial pile’.126

Gardening could produce a high income but evidence is fragmentary. In gardens south of the Thames, Brown found a probate inventory for 1673, where vegetable crops were worth £6 per acre compared to wheat at £4; by 1700 an acre of asparagus was valued at £100 while wheat was £5.127 At Neat House around 1798, from an annual revenue of £200 per acre, after costs of £80 per acre were paid, a profit of £120 could be achieved.128 The best market gardens in east London were said to produce £150 to £300 per acre per annum before costs in the 1860s.129

Thick suggests that from indications of wealth in their houses and probate inventories Neat House ‘gardeners ... were, by the standards of the time, substantial businessmen’.130 The 1664 hearth tax assessed 18 gardeners at Neat House with properties ranging from very poor to 9 hearths, indicating that, even in a superior location for commercial gardens, there was a range of wealth among gardeners.131 Marsh has a more reserved view that gardeners across London were ‘as likely to be [as] prosperous (or as poor) as any other trade group.’132 Most gardeners in Stuart London, identified through wills, were of the middling sort and had acquired a few luxury items. Gardeners had high rates of saving: 83 per cent were investing in property, others were lending money and those who were ‘comfortably off [were] diversifying their investments’.133 Some gardeners used their marginal land to widen

125 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 446. 126 Ibid., p. 491. 127 Brown, The market gardens of Barnes and Mortlake, p. 13. 128 Thick, The Neat House, p. 161, citing J. Middleton, View of the agriculture in the county of Middlesex (1798), pp. 263-4. This was probably a maximum rather than a typical income. 129 Matheson, Common ground, p. 86, from an item in the journal Floral World, July 1858, p. 158. 130 Thick, The Neat House, p. 123. 131 Ibid., p. 135. 132 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 505. 133 Ibid., pp. 438, 446, 457, 463.

26

their business interests and became property developers, especially if they were close to the urban fringe.134 Marsh found that on average gardeners’ wealth and incomes were higher than Earle found for middling Londoners, who gave £50 per annum and £300-£500 in wealth as the minimum for membership of the middle class, those with wealth of over £1000 ‘could live comfortably’.135 He argues that those family garden businesses providing out-of-season produce could ‘lead a comfortable “middling sort” of existence’ while seedsmen and those supplying exotic produce were wealthier.136 For the nineteenth century Matheson found that with family labour a gardener could earn enough from one acre to be placed in Charles Booth’s ‘comfortable class’.137 Yet many gardeners, especially those working for wages, had ‘very little opportunity to change their social condition’ with most labouring gardeners having ‘limited job security and opportunities’.138 The wealth of gardeners, particularly during the eighteenth century where evidence is sparse, lends itself to more systematic investigation, and the potential for business failure introduces another area for research.

A business could employ a variety of succession strategies but in a market garden a smooth transition was necessary to maintain continuous cultivation, prevent the deterioration of the garden, and sustain an income flow.139 Of 497 commercial gardeners in Stuart London who were married and left wills, 80.7 per cent bequeathed control of the business to their widow.140 Studies of succession tend to be based on wills and hence focus on inheritance at the death of the business owner, giving little attention to inter vivos bequests. Dynasties have been described in

134 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 439, 457. 135 Ibid., pp. 439, 457-64, P. Earle, The making of the English middle class: business, society and family life in London, 1660-1730 (1989), pp. 14-15. 136 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 491. 137 Matheson, Common ground, p. 86. 138 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 444, 492. 139 Thick, The Neat House, p. 123. 140 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 465-6.

27

industry and commerce and have been identified in market garden businesses.141 Several family firms in east London in the nineteenth century passed businesses from father to son and this has also been seen in nursery businesses in west London.142 There is scope for further research about succession strategies and dynasties.

Women gardeners are not the subject of a chapter in this study but are a theme running through all chapters. Women could be employers or employees working in a variety of roles. The current picture of eighteenth-century businesswomen reveals their presence in a diversity of occupations, yet Joy Uings comments that, ‘women are largely invisible in the story of gardens and gardening’.143 It is known that wives were involved in the day-to-day running of the gardens. London custom allowed widows to take over their husband’s livery company privileges, working alongside their husband being seen as equivalent to an apprenticeship.144 The agency, status and contribution of women garden owners has received little attention. Mary Rough, a widow running a garden for twenty years, provides an example of a businesswoman in a manual trade.145 Nicola Phillips has suggested that Mary Bagley was not a gardener in Fulham as the items she insured bore no resemblance to those of a gardener.146 Knowledge of the industry, demonstrated in this study, shows that

141 C. Lorandini,’ Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome: the Salvadori firm of Trento, 1660s- 1880s’, Business History, 57:7 (2015), pp. 1005-19;. A. Owens, ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms in the early industrial revolution’, Business History, 44:1 (2002); Rough, The operation of a small business; Willson, James Lee; idem, West London nursery gardens; S. Shepherd, Seeds of fortune: a garden dynasty (2003); Solman, The Loddiges of Hackney. 142 Matheson, Common ground, p. 84; Willson, West London nursery gardens ; Shepherd, Seeds of fortune. 143 H. Barker, ‘Women and work’, in H. Barker and E. Chalus, eds., Women’s history: Britain 1700- 1850, An Introduction (Abingdon, 2005), pp. 124-51; N. Phillips, Women in Business, 1700-1850 (Woodbridge, 2006); A. Erickson, ‘Married women‘s occupations in eighteenth-century London’, Continuity and Change, 23:1 (2008), pp. 267-307, touches on this briefly; Rough, The operation of a small business, pp. 23-30; Uings, Gardens and gardening, pp. 21, 310-11. 144 Thick, The Neat House, p. 139; Uings, Gardens and gardening, pp. 310-11; B. Hill, Women, work and sexual politics in eighteenth century England (Oxford, 1989), p. 246; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 468. 145 Rough, The operation of a small business. 146 Phillips, Women in business, p. 168. The items insured included various work-related premises common in large garden businesses.

28

she was in fact a gardener.147 Marsh argues that ‘it was not at all uncommon for women to have de facto control of the running of garden grounds … even if they did not always have de jure power.’148 He found that labouring women were employed in low wage tasks such as weeding, sowing, harvesting and marketing, but not in more skilled aspects such as pruning or grafting.149 During the summer season women came from Shropshire and Wales to work (and live) on the gardens around London. Contemporary comment on the wage differential in market gardens noted that women were receiving ‘only one half of what is paid for the same work to their fellow-labourers of the other sex’, and Pamela Sharpe considers this differential between men and women’s wages was commonplace.150 The role of women gardeners has been overlooked.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS Two fundamental questions have already been posed, ‘What was a gardener?’ and ‘What was a garden business?’ From the review of secondary literature several general gaps in knowledge have been identified. Firstly, the focus has been largely on the early modern period: the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century have received less consideration and there is scope for further research. Women in the industry have been overlooked and throughout this study the contribution of women will be considered. Few historians have taken a quantitative approach to provide systematic information and this is a focus here, as is the closer investigation that Thirsk requested. Finally, a limited number of primary sources have usually been interrogated, and most have not been used quantitatively. The range of sources,

147 Mary Bagley, 1809, Sun Insurance Office Policies, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/ 448/830150. 148 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 469. 149 Ibid., p. 469. 150 G. Evans, ‘Farms and market gardens’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham, p. 237; Rough, The operation of a small business, p. 24, citing P. Foot, General view of the agriculture in the county of Middlesex, (1794), p. 29; ‘Double and treble cropping’, Agricultural Journal and Transactions of the Lower Canada Agricultural Society, 1:1 (1848), p. 329, P. Sharpe, Adapting to capitalism: working women in the English economy, 1700-1850 (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 9, 76, 80, 100.

29

especially those with occupations is widened here, and the topics addressed will depend on the sources available.

The review of the historiography has also prompted several specific questions. A chronology of the changing acreage of garden ground in the parish needs to be established, and a closer view of the effect of urban development is also required. The number of employers and employees in the industry is not known, nor the overall structure, or the level of specialisation. The effect on gardening of the bishop of London’s large Fulham landholding has not been explored, and the extent of owner-occupation of garden land is unknown. There is a need for more knowledge about the influence of tenure and the size and structure of gardens needs to be explored. Bankruptcy and insolvency among gardeners, and the succession strategies utilised in the businesses have not been considered, while profitability in the industry can be examined through using the wealth of gardeners as a proxy. By addressing these shortcomings new dimensions will be added to our understanding and should also provide evidence to clarify ‘What was a gardener?’ This is a complex and dynamic issue and to date studies have not provided a satisfactory resolution. Similarly the findings should also contribute to answering ‘What was a garden business?’ The most productive way to address all these questions, and to address Thirsk’s request for closer investigation, is through the use of a microhistorical approach.

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES Since its inception in the 1970s microhistory has taken several forms but all adopt Giovanni Levi’s founding principles of reducing the ‘scale of observation’ and using

30

‘an intensive study of documentary material’.151 The method takes nominal linkage ‘beyond the strictly demographic’ and can ‘recover and reconstruct past events by … connecting a wide range of data sources so as to produce a contextual, three- dimensional, analytic narrative’.152 Studies are based on ‘small units’ such as an incident, an individual or a community.153 For example, Keith Wrightson recently reconstructed life in Newcastle during the 1636 plague from a scrivenor’s wills and depositions; Emma Rothschild created a social network from the signatories to an eighteenth-century French marriage contract in order to explore overseas commerce; and Barry Reay set his examination of nineteenth-century social change in the parishes of the Blean area of Kent.154 As Reay demonstrated, when ‘the local becomes the site for the consideration of much wider issues’, new insights and novel findings can emerge.155

The form of microhistory used here is most similar to Reay’s study and was tested in my study of a gardening business in Fulham in financial crisis.156 Statistical analysis is supported by qualitative evidence to set the results in a detailed context, and they are blended with biographies of gardeners in order to increase our understanding of the industry and to give a ‘voice’ to the people who worked in it. Detailed case studies reconstruct the lives of gardeners and the businesses they worked in. The

151 G. Levi, ‘On microhistory’, in P. Burke, ed., New perspectives on historical writing (Cambridge, 1991), p. 95; R. Brown, ‘Microhistory and the post-modern challenge’, Journal of the Early Republic, 23:1 (2003), pp. 11-14; D. Bell, ‘Total history and microhistory: The French and Italian paradigms’, in L. Kramer and S. Maza, eds., A companion to Western historical thought (Oxford, 2002), p. 269; C. Ginzburg, The cheese and the worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth-century miller (1992); N. Zemon Davis, The return of Martin Guerre (Cambridge, MA., 1983). 152 J. Boulton, ‘Microhistory in early modern London: John Bedford (1601-1667)’, Continuity and Change, 22:1 (2007), p. 113 citing C. Ginzburg and C. Poni, ‘The name and the game; unequal exchange and the historiographic marketplace’ in E. Muir and G. Ruggiero, eds., Microhistory and the lost peoples of Europe (Baltimore, MD., 1991), p. 5; Brown, ‘Microhistory’, p. 18. 153 S. Magnusson, ‘Microhistory: In-between methodologies and conceptual frameworks’, Microhistory (13 January 2013), [no pagination], www.microhistory.org/?e=34&w=journal, last accessed 16 July 2017. 154 K. Wrightson, Ralph Tailor’s summer: A scrivener, his city and the plague (New Haven, CT., 2011); E. Rothschild, ‘Isolation and economic life in eighteenth-century France’, American History Review, 119 (2014), pp. 1055-82; Reay, Microhistories. 155 Reay, Microhistories, p. xxii. 156 Rough, The operation of a small business.

31

linking of a wide range of primary sources in this microhistory provides a broad, robust base from which to examine commercial gardening businesses.157 Joan Thirsk made the point that while market gardening had a macrohistory it lacked the microhistory which would provide the details and processes with which to question the macro.158 Through combining a qualitative and quantitative analysis of gardening within a microhistory this study has a rigorous methodology from which to address the issues.

The parish of Fulham extended over 3,990 acres in 1792. It was chosen as the site of this study as it had the largest gardening acreage around London based on Lysons’ estimates of garden acreages in parishes around London (table 1.1).159 West Ham had the second largest acreage of gardens around London, but was only a third of the acreage gardened in Fulham. Even if Lysons’ estimates prove to be inaccurate, a huge error would be necessary for Fulham not to be the largest gardening parish near London at that time. The garden acreages in Edmonton, north London, Barnes, Surrey, and Neat House, where market gardening was the subject of earlier studies, were extremely small in comparison to Fulham.

The challenge of microhistory is in linking a wide range of ‘disparate and fragmentary sources’.160 Previously unused manuscript sources and published transcriptions of primary sources including gardeners and gardening have been located: this section outlines the sources used in this study and indicates their relevance to the research questions.

157 C. Ginzburg, ‘Microhistory’, Serious science (25 June 2015), http://serious- science.org/videos/2893, last accessed 17 July 2017; Reay, Microhistories, p. xxii; R. Thompson, Economic and social change in a Somerset village, 1700-1851: A micro-history, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (2004), p. 3. 158 Thirsk, Alternative agriculture, p. 174. 159 Thick, The Neat House, p. 56. 160 Thompson, Somerset village, p. 14.

32

Many primary and secondary sources covering between 1680 and 1861 have been scrutinised in order to identify individuals involved in gardening in Fulham parish. These include census data, fire insurance policies, clandestine marriage registers, bankruptcy notices, Bank of England stock accounts and will extracts, contemporary newspapers and journals, court rolls, Old Bailey proceedings, leases, and bishop of London’s records. A ‘gardeners’ database’ comprising 1579 individuals has been constructed. It contains the name of every skilled gardener located, the dates and details of each document in which they appear; records relevant to a particular individual have been linked, as have the familial associations between gardeners. The records contain predominantly male gardeners with only 38 female gardeners being identified. The database is confined to skilled gardeners and garden apprentices, as few jobbing gardeners and garden labourers can be identified in records.161 However, any whose garden occupations varied over their lifetime and included both skilled and labouring roles have been included. Not all people were gardeners for their lifetime and the database contains gardeners who also had an occupation in another agricultural sector or in a completely different trade. Many individuals appeared in only one document while others were found in several, and a few in many. The interconnectedness between individuals and families established in this study permits a more rigorous analysis of the industry.

Each document may provide only a snippet of information but nominal linkage creates a much richer picture of gardeners and gardens. The ability to check information across a number of sources at a similar date, or longitudinally, aids the validation of the evidence, in particular ensuring that the correct person has been

161 Labourers predominantly appear in the 1841-61 census, with a few identified in Old Bailey proceedings. Labourers in parish registers are considered in chapter 3.

33

identified in situations where several have the same name.162 Where it is unclear whether the data refer to more than one person, only one individual has been counted, thus the total is an underestimate. Once an individual has been identified as a gardener at one point in their lifetime there is the potential to find them in other documents, where they may have a different occupation. Identifying variations in the occupational terms attributed to an individual gardener contributes towards clarifying the lack of specificity in terminology caused by the long-term use of ‘gardener’.163

Eleanor Willson remarked on the destruction of records that, ‘There is something about business records which appears to bring out the vandal in the nicest of people’.164 Recently Joy Uings attributed the problem of writing market garden history to ‘a lack of quality data’ and the surviving business accounts and personal papers are mainly from large businesses and head gardeners.165 James Lee’s correspondence with Carl Linneaus is now available online but despite more sophisticated search tools, the lack of accounts and personal papers for market garden businesses remains.166

The completeness, consistency, and accuracy of each of the sources varies. For example, the Bank of England’s stock accounts are comprehensive, while in contrast their will extracts are not, and Fulham parish registers have periods when they were poorly maintained. When interpreting results careful examination of the sources is required and any deficiencies taken into account. In the following chapters as each

162 D. Grigg, ‘The changing agricultural geography of England: a commentary on the sources available for the reconstruction of the agricultural geography of England, 1770-1850’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41 (1967), pp. 73-95; E.A. Wrigley, ‘Introduction’, in E.A. Wrigley, ed., Identifying People in the Past (1973), pp. 1-16; S. Ottaway and S. Williams, ‘Reconstructing the life-cycle experience of poverty in the time of the old poor law’, Archives, 23 (1998), p. 26. 163 Harvey, Early nurserymen, p. 1; Uings, Gardens and gardening, p. 309. 164 Willson, ‘Commercial gardening records’, p. 123. 165 Uings, Gardens and gardening, p. 309; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners p. 447; Greener, Devon, pp. 21-3; Thick, The Neat House; Willson, James Lee; Shepherd, Seeds of fortune. 166 Correspondence between Carl Linnaeus and James Lee, 1766-81, The Linnean correspondence, http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_bio.php?id_person=1097, last accessed 27 July 2017.

34

key primary source is introduced a discussion about its strengths and weaknesses is given.

FULHAM AND HAMMERSMITH Fulham parish is situated on the north bank of the river Thames 5.5 miles west of the City of London (maps 1.2 and 1.3). It is bounded by the Thames in the south, Chelsea and Kensington to the east, Acton and Chiswick to the west, and Willesden to the north.167 From north to south it is approximately 5.5 miles in length, and from east to west 1.5 miles, with c. 2286 acres in Hammersmith and 1705 acres in Fulham, the eastern boundary being about 4 miles west of Covent Garden.168 Wormwood Scrubs in the north is 72 feet above sea level but much of the south of the parish was made up of low-lying land, with areas below the high water mark protected from flooding by embankments.169 From 700 until 1868 the manor was held by the bishop of London, providing a continuity of administration lasting over 1,100 years.170 The manor courts were active into the late nineteenth century.171

The Great West Road, a turnpike established in the early eighteenth century, stretched from London through southern Hammersmith to Bath, with a road branching south towards the river crossing between Fulham and Putney.172 In the south of the parish was the King’s private road from London to the river crossing.173 Another primary means of communication was the river Thames with a frontage of 5 miles in the parish.174 A ferry to Putney served as the main crossing until 1729 when

167 Modern place name spellings will be used, unless in direct quotations. 168 T. Faulkner, An historical and topographical account of the history of Fulham (1813), pp. 2-3; UK grid reference finder, http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/, last accessed 16 July 2017. 169 C. Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol. 1 (3 vols., 1900), p. 24; UK Grid reference finder. 170 Faulkner, History of Fulham, p. 1; History of Fulham Palace, http://www.fulhampalace.org/palace/history/, last accessed 17 July 2017. 171 Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol 1, p. 14. 172 T. Faulkner, The history and antiquities of the parish of Hammersmith (1839), p. 19. 173 A. Janes, The King’s (Private) road (2013) http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/the-kings- private-road/, last accessed 28 March 2015. 174 Faulkner, History of Fulham, p. 3.

35

Map 1.2: Fulham and Hammersmith in relation to London and the City, 1786.

Hammersmith

Fulham

Source: John Cary, Actual survey of fifteen miles around London (1786).

36

Map 1.3 Sketch map of Fulham and south Hammersmith, after Faulkner, 1813.

Paddenswick Shepherds Green Bush Green

Uxbridge road

Hammersmith / Turnpike Fulham boundary

Walham Green

Kings road Parsons Green

37

Fulham bridge was built, becoming the first bridge upstream from London bridge.175 It was a toll bridge until 1880.176 Hammersmith bridge opened in 1827 linking the west of the parish to Barnes on the Surrey bank.177 The Paddington canal, an extension to the Grand Junction canal, was opened in 1801, north of Wormwood Scrubs.178 Additionally, in 1828, along the border with Chelsea, the Kensington canal was built from the Thames, north as far as the Hammersmith/Fulham boundary. It was acquired by a railway company in 1839 intending to link it with the Great Western railway, which opened across the north of the parish in 1838, but the venture failed.179 The expansion of local railways to serve the parishes was slow in the period of this study.

Fulham ‘town’ was centred on All Saints church and the bishop of London’s palace, near the crossing to Putney. The parish included a number of other small settlements, including Shepherds Bush, Paddenswick Green and Brook Green on the Hammersmith side, and Parsons Green, North End and Walham Green on the Fulham side.180 The estimated parish population between 1674 and 1871, given in table 1.2, shows almost 300 per cent growth between 1801 and 1861. For many years from at least the seventeenth century the parish was the home of gentry and aristocracy, especially in the summer when the bishop was in residence at the palace,

175 ‘Putney or Fulham Bridge’ in B. Weinreib, C. Hibbert, J. Keay, and J. Keay, eds., The London encyclopaedia (3rd edn., 2008), p. 670. Renamed Putney Bridge in 1886 when a new replacement bridge was opened. http://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/sites/default/files/distances_between_bridges_in_london-1.pdf, last accessed 16 July 2017. 176 Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol. 1, p. 62. 177 Hammersmith Bridge’, in Weinreib, et al, eds., The London encyclopaedia, p. 373. 178 Unattributed, ‘Hammersmith in 1839’, in P. Whitting, ed., History of Hammersmith, p. 126. 179 D. Pratt, London canals (Princes Risborough, 2004), p. 53; ‘Kensington canal’, in Weinreib, et al, eds., The London encyclopaedia, p. 449. 180 The settlements had a variety of spellings over the years but the modern versions are used here.

38

including Queen Caroline, estranged wife of King George IV, as well as his first ‘wife’ Mrs Fitzherbert.181

Table 1.2 Population of the Fulham and Hammersmith ‘sides’ of the parish, 1674-1871. Population of % Year Fulham Hammersmith Total Inner increase London182 1674* 1,355* na 1724* 2,225* na 1801 4,428 5,600 10,028 879,491 1811 5,903 7,393 13,286 32.5 1,040,033 1821 6,492 8,809 15,301 15.2 1,263,975 1831 7,317 10,222 17,539 14.6 1,515,557 1841 9,319 13,453 22,772 29.8 1,661,346 1851 11,886 17,760 29,646 30.2 1,995,846 1861 15,539 24,519 40,058 35.1 2,643,143 1871 23,350 42,691 66,041 66.9 3,272,441

Sources: Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol 1, pp. 28-9; http://www.histpop.org; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London. Note: * an estimate by Feret based on the number of people rated.

The first references to commercial gardening in Fulham were to orchards in the sixteenth century and from the early seventeenth century farmer-gardeners were cultivating a combination of grain and vegetables, but the date when cultivation by

181 F. Fowler, Queen Caroline in Fulham (2014), https://lbhflibraries.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/queen-caroline-in-fulham/ last accessed 16 July 2017; P. Taylor and C. McLaren, ‘Walham Green and Parsons Green’, in P. Whitting, ed., History of Fulham, p. 67; B. Denny, Fulham past (1997), pp. 47-8, 85-7. 182 Inner London census data, comprised of City of London, Camden, Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, Wandsworth, Westminster, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newnham, Southwark, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London, last accessed 6 August 2017.

39

spade in market gardens became predominant is not documented.183 In 1607 Norden mentioned that Fulham was a carrot growing area, and by the early 1630s the gardeners and husbandmen of the parish were disputing the Gardeners’ Company’s right to regulate their production of root vegetables.184 A report from the City of London aldermen in 1635 noted that common fields in Fulham were being used for a rotation of root vegetables and corn, some of which were ploughed up while others were cultivated by spade.185 The earliest nursery definitely dated in Fulham was the ‘Fulham nursery’ run by William Gray, founded c. 1700, although the nurseryman Thomas Rench (born c. 1630) had been in business for a long period when he acquired Southfield Farm in 1711.186 One holding in Fulham of 25 acres was reported in 1704 to have 9 acres of peas, 3 acres of wheat, 9 acres of barley and 3 acres of carrots, suggesting it was practising farming-gardening, while some areas had been enclosed and the extent of orchard fruit and soft fruit grown in gardens was remarked upon in 1721.187 The earliest will of a Fulham man referring to himself as a gardener dates from 1651 but he need not necessarily have been a commercial gardener; the first will of a man who was definitely a commercial gardener dates from 1728.188 The extent of enclosed gardens increased and Dewe and Haselgrove argue that ‘[M]any of the gardens and orchards were the result of a conscious policy of land enclosure in order to cultivate garden produce rather than arable crops for the London market.’189 The pressure of population in London moved the urban fringe westwards and development began to overrun the gardens at Neat House, Pimlico, in

183 M. Dewe and D. Haselgrove, ‘Fulham town, Hurlingham and Crabtree’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham, p. 33; R. Weinstein, ‘London’s market gardens in the early modern period’, in M. Galinou, ed., London’s pride: the glorious history of the capital’s gardens (1990), pp. 88-90; Unattributed, ‘Economic history’, pp.150-5. 184 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 360-70; Weinstein, ‘London’s market gardens’, p. 88. In 1596 Norden wrote the preface in Speculum Britanniae (1723) from his ‘poore howse neere Fulham, 4 November 1596’, p. 24. 185 F. Fisher, ‘The development of the London food market, 1540-1640’, EcHR, 5:2 (1935), p. 54. 186 Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol. 2, p. 132; Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 19, 73. 187 Thick, The Neat House, p. 47. 188 Will of John Bye, 1651, TNA, PROB 11/218/329; Will of Thomas Rench, 1728, TNA, PROB 11/621/224. 189 Dewe and Haselgrove, ‘Fulham town’, p. 33. This book is not footnoted and there is no source given for this information.

40

1807 and at Chelsea from the mid-nineteenth century.190 Census data showing the employment structure in Fulham and Hammersmith parishes was published for 1811 to 1831 (table 1.3). Gardening occupations were part of agriculture and one combined total was available. This shows agriculture to be a major economic sector on the Fulham ‘side’ supporting over a third of families in 1811, compared to 13.9 per cent of families in Hammersmith. The number employed in agriculture increased by 36.1 per cent in Fulham between 1811 and 1831 and 24.6 per cent in

Table 1.3 Number of families employed in agriculture and other trades, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1811-1831.191

No. of families Total employed Agricultural families / No. of families in trade, employment persons in employed in manufacture & as a % of all Census parish agriculture handicrafts families Fulham 1811 1094 / 5903 421 392 38.5 1821 1219 / 6492 437 448 35.9 1831 1565 / 7317 573 496 36.6 Hammersmith 1811 1521 / 7393 211 965 13.9 1821 1887 / 8809 273 1140 14.5 1831 2240 /10222 263 1544 11.7 Sources: See footnote 191.

190 L. Bennett, The horticultural industry of Middlesex, (University of Reading, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Miscellaneous Studies No. 7, 1952), p. 10; Thick, Neat House, p. 163; Unattributed, ‘Economic history’, pp. 150-5. 191 Sources: Abstract of answers and returns Made pursuant to an Act, passed in the Fifty-first Year of the reign of His Majesty King George III intituled, “An Act for taking an Account of the population of Great Britain, and the increase or diminution thereof.’ 1811, Observations and enumeration abstract (1812) Middlesex, p. 194; Abstract of answers and returns Made pursuant to an Act, passed in the First Year of the reign of His Majesty King George IV intituled, “An Act for taking an Account of the Population of Great Britain, and the increase or diminution thereof.’ Observations, enumeration and parish register abstracts 1821 (1822), Middlesex, p. 191; Abstract of answers and returns Made pursuant to an Act, passed in the Eleventh Year of the reign of His Majesty King George IIV intituled, “An Act for taking an Account of the Population of Great Britain, and the Increase or Diminution thereof.’, Enumeration abstract Vol. 1 1831 (1833) Middlesex, pp. 366-7. www.histpop.org.

41

Hammersmith, and this was only a slightly declining proportion of all employment as the population size increased. Fulham remained an important market garden area as late as 1872 but by 1890 most gardens had succumbed to the urban sprawl.192

The four chapters that follow consider commercial gardening from new perspectives. Chapter 2 analyses land use in the parish in order to trace the spatial development of the industry based on four land-use maps dating from 1747 to 1845 that I have redrawn to the same scale and format, and calculated the garden acreages on each map. Comparison between them enables the changing acreage to be assessed and any variation in garden locations is identified.193 The concept of ‘contested geographies’ is used as an analytical framework to aid the understanding of competing land uses, providing new ideas about how the garden industry adapted in the face of demands from urban development and other agricultural needs.

In chapter 3 the development in terminology for gardening occupations is assessed and informs the debate about the expansion of, and specialisation in, commercial gardening. Statistical analysis of five sources - apprenticeship records, parish registers and clandestine marriage registers, wills, and census data - provides new, systematic evidence about garden employers and employees. The size and structure of the industry is established for the first time and permits a critical assessment of the number of gardeners recorded in the census. Difficulties concerning the use of the term ‘gardener’ found in the census enumerators’ books are examined through the case of Charles Bagley the owner of a large garden business. Consideration of the number of gardening apprentices is illustrated by biographies of five families and

192 Evans, ‘Farms and market gardens’, p. 237. 193 J. Rocque, A new and accurate survey of the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of Southwark : with the country about it for nineteen miles in length and thirteen in depth ... (1747), CUL, Atlas.2.74.2; T. Milne, Thomas Milne’s land use map of London and environs in 1800 (facsimile edn., 1975-6); J. Salter, View of the hamlet of Hammersmith taken from actual survey in the year 1830 (1830), HFA, HC910SAL; Plan of the Parish of Fulham in the County of Middlesex, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/A; Plan of the Parish of Hammersmith in the County of Middlesex, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/A.

42

gives an innovative picture of the status associated with membership of a livery company, while the story of a family in poverty illustrates the intricacies of parish apprenticeship. These further our understanding of the formal and informal training of gardeners. Comparative analysis of the three snapshots of the structure of the industry in the 1841-1861 censuses provides insights into the differing use of terminology, highlighting the misunderstanding that could occur from the use of only one census.194 Together they add new commentary to the debate about what constituted a gardener.

The focus of chapter 4 is on landlords, tenants and tenure. Setting the study in Fulham allows reference to the body of documents created to administer the extensive estates of the bishop of London in the parish. Through consideration of the part played by landlords, owner-occupiers, and tenants, the role of tenure in the development of gardening businesses is examined. The size of landholdings by landlords and gardeners, and the tenurial composition of businesses at the time of the tithe apportionment survey are assessed, presenting a new contribution to the debate on the concentration of agricultural land into the hands of a few landlords, and the extent of owner-occupation. Consideration of the mixture of tenure and land use in gardens contributes towards resolving the question, ‘What was a garden business?’

The business of gardening is the subject of chapter 5. Claims about the profitability of the industry are examined through discussion of the wealth of gardeners based on

194 Hammersmith census return, 1831, HFA, PAH/1/215; Census returns,1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns,1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, St Peter Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/690/6-7; Census returns, Middlesex, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, Middlesex, 1851, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/1470; Census returns, Middlesex, Kensington, 1851, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule TNA, HO 107/1471; 1861 Census returns, Middlesex, Kensington, St Peter Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, RG 9/23; 1861 Census returns, Middlesex, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, RG 9/24-26; 1861 Census returns, Middlesex, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, RG 9/27-29. www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 21 July 2017.

43

Bank of England records, wills, and insurance policies, while a case study of a nurseryman shows the extreme wealth that could be amassed from participation in the industry. Less successful gardeners are found in bankruptcies and insolvency notices in the London Gazette, and a case study based on papers from a commission of bankruptcy shows how vulnerable to external events business life could be. Finally, succession strategies in gardening businesses and the ways in which gardeners chose to deal with the future of their businesses are explored, in some cases establishing gardening dynasties. The lives and work of the gardeners that are recovered in this study inform a wider understanding of the industry over 180 years.

44

CHAPTER 2

THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL GARDENS, 1747-1845

In the mid-eighteenth century commercial gardening was well established in Fulham parish, but the evidence base supporting the chronology of development is narrow, predominantly qualitative, and at times reliant on anecdotes in a few antiquarian histories. Despite the importance of commercial gardening in the parish economy during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, its development in Fulham has ‘never been fully studied’.195 The aim of this chapter is to establish a chronology of the extent and location of gardens based on quantitative and qualitative evidence. This will provide a more informed understanding of the development of the sector and form a foundation for future analysis.

Prior to 1872 there is a ‘dearth of statistics’ to illustrate the size of the gardening industry.196 The 1801 Home Office Acreage return for Fulham mentions 344 acres of vegetables, comprising 161 acres of potatoes, 100 acres of turnips and a further 83 acres of arable ‘planted after harvest with cabbages’, with only the cabbages grown using gardening methods.197 Market gardens were not included as a category to be measured but a footnote mentions a further 800 acres that were ‘occupied by market gardeners who sow peas, beans, turnips, intermixed with other things’, although with no indication of what the ‘other things’ might have been.198 This approximates to Lysons’ estimate in 1796 of 800 acres of market gardens and 200 acres of farming-

195 M. Dewe and D. Haselgrove, ‘Fulham town, Hurlingham and Crabtree’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), p. 33. 196 L. Bennett, The horticultural industry of Middlesex (University of Reading, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Miscellaneous Studies No. 7, 1952), p. 15. 197 Home Office, Acreage returns (HO 67) List and Index Society, Part II Jersey to Somerset 1801 (Vol. 190, 1982), transcribed and ed. M. Turner, pp. 120-2. 198 Ibid., pp. 120-2.

45

gardening, and his estimates have been described as ‘reasonable’.199 Eleanor Willson’s comparison of the agricultural acreages given by Lysons, John Salter’s land-use map of Hammersmith for 1830, and in the Hammersmith tithe apportionment schedule of 1845, indicates that between 1795 and 1845 the amount of arable land in Hammersmith ‘declined steeply’ being replaced by gardens but thereafter they too declined as houses were built.200 Willson suggests that the decline in arable in Hammersmith in the early nineteenth century and the conversion of land to market gardens ‘may well reflect the uncertainties of corn growing once the prices, artificially raised by the war, began to fall’.201 Similarly, Peter Atherall argues that as prices for garden produce peaked in 1818 and again in 1825, and garden rents were treble those of agricultural land, conditions were favourable for agricultural land to be converted to gardens.202

Previous studies have connected the changes in the acreage of commercial gardening with a variety of factors, including increased demand, new production methods, the introduction of new and exotic produce, and changing consumer taste.203 The hypothesis of this study is that there was a structural transition towards specialisation over a long period, beginning with the establishment of orchards, vegetables

199 D. Lysons, ‘General view of the former and present state of market gardens, and the quantity of land now occupied for that purpose within twelve miles of London’, The environs of London, Counties of Herts, Essex, and Kent (4 vols., 1796), vol. 4, pp. 573-6, http://www.british-history.ac.uk, last accessed 25 September 2015; Bennett, The horticultural industry, p. 17. These figures refer to Fulham and exclude Hammersmith. 200 J. Salter, View of the hamlet of Hammersmith taken from actual survey in the year 1830 (1830), HFA, HC910SAL; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith in the county of Middlesex, 1845, London, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B; Lysons, Environs, Vol. 2, p. 401, E. Willson, ‘Farming, market and nursery gardening’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), p. 89. 201 Willson, ‘Farming, market and nursery gardening’, p. 89; idem, West London nursery gardens: the nursery gardens of Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith, Kensington and a part of Westminster founded before 1900 (1982), p. 86. 202 P. Atherall, The displacement of market gardening around London by urban growth, 1745-1939, unpublished MLitt dissertation, University of Cambridge, (1976), pp. 83, 100. 203 Bennett, The horticultural industry, pp. 9-11; D. Marsh, The gardens and gardeners of later Stuart London, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (2004); M. Thick, The Neat House gardens: early market gardening around London (Totnes, 1998); idem, ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’, in J. Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales, Vol. 5, 1640-1750: II Agrarian change (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 503-9.

46

replacing the fallow year in rotations, then farmer-gardeners added some intensively grown vegetables, followed by the introduction of specialist nurseries, seed-growing, and vegetables grown using gardening methods. During the long eighteenth century these systems of cultivation co-existed. Dwindling amounts of the older methods persisted in parallel with the newer types of cultivation into the nineteenth century, in orchards, market gardens and nurseries; in walled or enclosed gardens and the open fields.

Existing descriptions of the changing spatial distribution of gardens in Fulham parish are generalised.204 This is despite the existence of three land-use maps, published in 1747, 1800, and 1830, and land use in the 1843/5 tithe apportionment surveys, providing contemporary evidence of the scale and location of the gardening industry. To provide a more fine-grained analysis, this chapter examines the development of commercial gardening from a statistical and spatial perspective by utilising these maps.205 As their construction differs, and a variety of schematics are used, the maps are critiqued separately. For this study I have redrawn the maps to the same scale and key to provide comparable information, and the acreage of gardens and other land- use on each one has been calculated. The concept of contested geographies will then be used as an analytical framework to assess the influences affecting the location and relative mix of land use in the parish. The findings support Willson’s analysis of changes in Hammersmith, and show that in Fulham the acreage of gardens continued to increase into the nineteenth century.

204 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening; Thick, The Neat House; Bennett, The horticultural industry; Willson, ‘Farming, market and nursery gardening’; J. Matheson, Common ground: horticulture and the cultivation of open space in the East End of London, 1840-1900, unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University (2010); K. Bailey, The metamorphosis of Battersea, 1800-1914. A building history, unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University (1995). 205 J. Rocque, A new and accurate survey of the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of Southwark : with the country about it for nineteen miles in length and thirteen in depth ... (1747), CUL, Atlas.2.74.2; T. Milne, Thomas Milne’s land use map of London and environs in 1800 (facsimile edn., 1975-6); Salter, Hammersmith, HFA, HC910SAL; Plan of the Parish of Fulham in the County of Middlesex, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/A; Plan of the Parish of Hammersmith in the County of Middlesex, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/A; Bennett, The horticultural industry, p. 8. Salter’s 1830 map covers the Hammersmith side only.

47

Contested geographies can be defined as the effects of conflicts or tensions that occur when the competition for geographical space is viewed from different perspectives, or by people who have differing needs. This approach has been used by scholars to examine a range of topics including military conflicts, colonialism, religious differences in Northern Ireland, ideas about community, and heritage sites.206 This is a particularly appropriate conceptual tool as contestations are apparent in an 1872 report relating to Fulham. It outlined the differing claims of people affected by a proposal to enclose the waste at Wormwood Scrubs and detailed ‘the various rights and interests … of the conflicting and contesting parties.’207

Such contestations may have several dimensions but at their simplest they can address differences both between and within groups. For example, in Fulham contestations between groups can be seen in the competition for land between urban expansion and food production, and within groups in the competition for agricultural land between the producers of dairy products and gardeners. The approach highlights that gardens did not develop in a vacuum but were competing for space - a finite resource. Within this framework variables can evolve dynamically; their relative importance can change over time, with some declining while new influences appear, and as Anita Baviskar argues, the concept promotes a ‘greater appreciation of the complex and contingent conditions’ affecting change.208

206 S. Aitken and G. Valentine, ‘Contested geographies: culture wars, personal clashes and joining debate’, in S. Aitken and G. Valentine, ed., Approaches to human geography (2006); B. Morehouse, A place called Grand Canyon: contested geographies (Tucson, AZ, 1996); C. Léith, ‘Video, landscape and the politics and poetics of place in Ireland’, Experimental Conversations, 4 (2009), http://www.experimentalconversations.com/article/video-landscape-and-the-politics-poetics-of-place- in-ireland/, last accessed 22 August 2017; G. Rose, ‘Imagining Poplar in the 1920s: contested concepts of community’, Journal of Historical Geography, 16:4 (1990), 425-37; B. Shaw and R. Jones eds., Contested urban heritage: voices from the periphery (Aldershot, 1997). 207 Re Wormholt Scrubs. The Report of Messrs. Alley-Jones & Co. Various rights and privileges &c of the Lord of the Manor, of the Commoners, and of the parishioners of Hammersmith and Fulham in the commonable lands known as The Wormholt Scrubs, March 1872, HFA, DD/15/7, p. 4. 208 A. Baviskar, ‘Introduction’, in A. Baviskar, ed., Contested grounds: essays on nature, culture and power (Oxford, 2008), pp. 4, 7.

48

CRITIQUE OF SOURCES This section discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the presentation of land-use on the four maps.

John Rocque’s map, 1747 The earliest map of land use in Fulham was created by John Rocque. Described as a cartographer who ‘was a pioneer in delineating land utilisation’, his map of London, Westminster and Southwark was published in 1747 at a scale of 1000 feet to 1 inch.209 The high quality of the map engraving has produced clear digital enlargements to assist in the identification of gardens.210 An extract showing the southern part of the parish is given in map 2.1.

Coverage of Fulham is split over two pages in the atlas and when fitted together there is a slight mismatch towards the eastern boundary. The scale is sufficiently large for the map to show roads, watercourses and houses. Horticultural land, ploughed land and pasture are differentiated, and the legend has symbols for hedges, walls, and ditches. Despite a limited number of types of land use market gardens can be discerned, although nurseries have the same symbol. Not all the symbols used on the map are in the legend. For example, where the Great West Road crosses the eastern boundary there appears to be an area of dead trees (map 2.2) and one could speculate it indicated a disused orchard. This plot became part of the Vineyard Nursery established by James Lee and his partner, Lewis Kennedy. Is this the former orchard they took over to form the basis of their new business in 1745?211

209 Rocque, Survey, CUL, Atlas.2.74.2; J. Varley, ‘John Rocque, Engraver, surveyor, cartographer and map-seller’, Imago Mundi, 5:1 (1948), p. 88; V. Scott, ed., Tooley’s dictionary of mapmakers, Q-Z (revised edn., Riverside, CT, 2004), p. 62; R. Hyde, The A-Z of Georgian London (1981), p. vi; J. O’Neill, ‘John Rocque as a guide to gardens’, Garden History, 16:1 (1988), p. 8. The scale of Rocque’s map was approximately 5.25 inches to 1 mile. 210 Thanks are due to the University of Cambridge Library, Digital content unit, for this photography. 211 Willson, West London nursery gardens, p. 43.

49

Map 2.1 Extract from Rocque’s map showing market gardens and Fulham Field in the southern part of Fulham parish, 1747.

Market gardens & nurseries

Source: Rocque, Survey, CUL, Atlas.2.74.2.

50

Map 2.2 A disused orchard?

Source: Rocque, Survey, CUL, Atlas.2.74.2.

Rocque’s representations of fields have been described as ‘sketchy’ or ‘merely conventional chequer work’.212 Given this criticism, a number of checks have been made to assess the accuracy of the cartography and the depiction of land use by comparing the fields shown on his map with the tithe apportionment maps.213 To the north of Uxbridge Road, where there are large fields and an area of waste, the cartography and measurement is less accurate; in particular, the north/south distances

212 G. Bull, ‘Introduction’, in T. Milne, Thomas Milne’s land use map, p. 3; G. Bull, ‘Thomas Milne’s land utilization map’, The Geographical Journal, 122:1 (1956), p. 27, citing F. Emmison, County maps of Essex (Chelmsford, 1955), p. 10. 213 Rocque, Survey, CUL, Atlas.2.74.2; Plan of the parish of Fulham, DL/TI/A/015/A; Plan of the parish of Hammersmith, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/A.

51

are foreshortened, therefore I have made adjustments on the new map to correct for this. South of Uxbridge Road, where gardens predominate, sufficient boundaries correspond to fields on the tithe map to indicate that the map has a high degree of accuracy. This may be due to Rocque being familiar with the area; his brother Bartholomew was a horticulturalist who had a garden in Walham Green, Fulham, that was identified on the map (map 2.3). In summary, the map is a good representation allowing a little latitude for inaccurate surveying in the northern part, which has been corrected.

Map 2.3 Extract showing Bartholomew Rocque’s garden at Waltam [sic] Green, Fulham.

Source: Rocque, Survey, CUL, Atlas.2.74.2.

52

Malcolm Thick considered that the layout of the Neat House area of market gardens was drawn accurately by Rocque and represented the form of market gardens.214 There remains some difficulty in distinguishing small commercial gardens from back gardens growing vegetables or with an orchard. Rocque’s map has many small gardens attached to houses or outbuildings with the same layout as larger market gardens and it is possible that these small acreages were used commercially. The two back-gardens outlined in map 2.4 have an equivalent plot in the tithe schedule of slightly less than a quarter acre, designated as ‘market garden ground’. As a potential phase in development, or parts of larger gardens, they should not be overlooked but other information needs to be found to confirm those that were commercial gardens in the mid-eighteenth century. When combined with other information Rocque’s map permits a good estimate of the acreage of gardens.

Map 2.4 Extract showing small commercial gardens in Fulham.

Source: Rocque, Survey, CUL, Atlas.2.74.2.

214 Thick, The Neat House, p. 96.

53

Thomas Milne’s map, 1800 Thomas Milne’s map was published in 1800 on a scale of 2 inches to 1 mile; an extract is shown in map 2.5.215 Milne was described is ‘an able surveyor’; he used the newly available theodolite to construct his map which is considered to be as accurate as the first Ordnance Survey (OS) one-inch maps of London published in 1807, with field boundaries corresponding ‘quite well with detail on larger plans’.216

Map 2.5 Extract from Thomas Milne’s land-use map, 1800.

Common garden fields (cgf) & market gardens (g)

Source: Milne, Milne’s land use map.

215 Milne, Milne’s land use map. This is the same area as shown in map 2.1. 216 Bull, ‘Thomas Milne’s land utilization map’, pp. 25-7; J. Harvey, ‘The nurseries on Milne’s land- use map’, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 24 (1973), pp. 177-8.

54

Since it has the smallest scale of all four maps it lacks comparable detail, but the combination of colours and symbols depict subtle variations in land use. Together they form seventeen categories of land use and discriminate between common fields and enclosed land.217 Orchards, nursery grounds and market gardens are identified separately and John Harvey speculates that this could be due to the cartographer being related to ‘Thomas Milne (c. 1767-1838) a nurseryman in Fulham’.218 The open fields in Fulham are marked by stripes indicating gardens and arable with the letters ‘cgf’ for ‘common garden fields’. This convention makes the assessment of acreage for these areas problematic and is discussed below.219 The encroachment of enclosed gardens into these areas can be seen.

Harvey’s assessment of nurseries on the map raises a minor question about accuracy. He notes that one nursery in Fulham, belonging to Lee and Kennedy appears to have been omitted. Otherwise he considers the map ‘agrees well with a list of metropolitan nurseries’ he has drawn up.220 Despite these minor aberrations, and the small scale of the map, it is an accurate representation of land use at the turn of the century; the distribution of agricultural land is clear, and the acreages can be calculated from the newly-drawn map with reasonable precision.

John Salter’s map of Hammersmith, 1830 This map covers only Hammersmith but is useful as it was completed in a period when change was taking place (map 2.6).221 As there were two men, father and son, both called John Salter in Hammersmith at the time it is unclear which was the cartographer. It is probable he was the same person who was assistant surveyor to the

217 Bull, ‘Thomas Milne’s land utilization map’, p. 25. 218 Harvey, ‘The nurseries on Milne’, p. 178. 219 Bull, ‘Thomas Milne’s land utilization map’, pp. 25-6. The pink areas denote large houses and their surrounding parkland. 220 Harvey, ‘The nurseries on Milne’, p. 177. 221 Salter, Hammersmith, HFA, HC910SAL. It also provides a clear view of the boundary between the two ‘sides’ of the parish.

55

Hammersmith vestry in 1836.222 The weight of evidence favours John Jnr., an amateur horticulturalist who became an eminent nurseryman and author.223

Map 2.6 Extract from John Salters’s map at Brook Green, Hammersmith, 1830.

Source: Salter, View of Hammersmith, HFA, HC910SAL.

Drawn on a scale of 10 inches to 1 mile, the map has a larger scale than both Rocque’s and Milne’s. Colours and symbols were used to denote housing, arable land, gardens and brickfields but an explanatory key has not been located.224 Most symbols are self-evident, including market gardens. As the map was not used by the

222 P. Taylor and P. Whitting, John Salter’s map of Hammersmith: some notes and a gazetteer (1971), p. 4. 223 Ibid., pp. 3-5; J. Salter, The chrysanthemum: its history and culture (1865). 224 Taylor and Whitting, John Salter’s map, pp. 6-7.

56

tithe commissioners historians have assumed it was unreliable.225 However, Taylor and Whitting argue that the commissioners found it was out-of-date by 1845 as there had been many changes in the parish in the intervening 15 years. They consider Salter gave an accurate representation of the land in 1830.226 Once again a problem in using this map is that the distinction between domestic back gardens, market gardens and nurseries is unclear; there are no colour distinctions and similar symbols are used. Comparison with the other maps, combined with additional information from other sources, has been employed to aid the understanding of land use, but the acreages may be slightly less accurate.

Tithe apportionment survey, 1843/5 Historians have argued that the detailed land-use information in the tithe maps and apportionment schedules is ‘unequalled by any other series of documents’ for the reconstruction of agrarian land use.227 Surveyors conducted a field survey in the parish and the information was presented as a map of plots, and an apportionment schedule.228 There were two sets of documents, one covering Fulham in 1843 and another for Hammersmith in 1845, and a section of the Fulham map showing the south of the parish is given in map 2.7 and a detail in map 2.8.229 The Hammersmith map is on a scale of 2 chains (44 yards) to 1 inch, larger than most tithe maps, while the Fulham map is the more usual 5 chains to 1 inch, together amounting to a map approximately 18 feet long by 9 feet wide.230

225 Taylor and Whitting, John Salter’s map, p. 3. 226 Ibid., p, 7. 227 H. Prince, ‘The tithe surveys of the mid-nineteenth century’, AgHR, 7:1 (1959), p. 14. 228 R. Kain, An atlas and index of the tithe files of mid-nineteenth-century England and Wales (Cambridge, 1986), p. 1. 229 Plan of the parish of Hammersmith, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/A; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B; Plan of the Parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/A; Apportionment for the parish of Fulham in the county of Middlesex, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B. 230 Prince, ‘The tithe surveys’, p. 21.

57

Map 2.7 Extract from the Fulham tithe apportionment map showing the south west of the parish, 1843.

Source: Plan of the parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/A.

58

Map 2.8 Detail of Fulham Field around Dawes Road, Fulham parish, showing open field strips, housing and plot numbers.231

Source: Plan of the parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/A.

Neither map actually depicts the land use. The whole parish was divided into individual plots of land which were numbered. To find the land use and acreage for each plot, reference has to be made to the corresponding number in the tithe apportionment schedule.232 Generally, tithe apportionment schedules have several hundred plots although some have up to 3,000: there are 2,279 plots in Hammersmith, tending towards the larger type, and 1,047 in Fulham.233 For each plot the landowner, occupier, a description of the plot’s contents, the state of cultivation,

231 The street map of this area today shows predominantly East-West roads following the plot shapes, around the diagonal of Dawes Road. 232 R. Kain and H. Prince, The tithe surveys of England and Wales, (Cambridge, 1985), p. 101. Recently the tithe maps have been digitised but the land use has not been superimposed on the map. Selecting a plot number in the schedule flags up the appropriate plot on the map. The map has not been coloured for land use and an overall comparison cannot be made. They are available at TNA or online at the Society of Genealogists’ site. 233 Ibid., p. 94.

59

acreage and tithe payable were given.234 Some plots in map 2.8 have individual houses or buildings in an enclosed field, while others include a row of houses, or an unfenced strip within the open field (indicated by a dotted line). The distinction between grass, pasture and meadow is not clear, a problem which has been identified previously, but as it is not the focus of this analysis it has been grouped together under the heading of grassland.235

The ‘market garden land’ description in the tithe survey encompasses orchards and therefore conceals the amount of fruit that was being grown probably because, as part of the complex multiple cropping technique employed, fruit trees were usually underplanted with soft fruit, vegetables or salad crops, and this caveat applies generally to all the maps. This can be gauged to some extent, although for 10 years later, from the index to Maclure’s 1853 land-use map where ‘fruit land’ was mentioned in 10 plots. For example, William Deller had a ‘House and market garden and fruit land’ at North End, while at Parson’s Green, Henry Solomon and Alexander Dancer each had a ‘Nursery and fruit land’.236 Unfortunately Maclure did not include any acreages. The extraordinary detail of the tithe maps outweighs the reservations discussed above and they present a unique opportunity to assess accurately land use in a period of change.237

In summary, despite a number of deficiencies these land use maps are all of sufficient quality to give an assessment of the overall extent and location of market gardening in Fulham and Hammersmith, but new evidence presented in later chapters will temper this initial interpretation as the structure and changing production in gardens is explored further.

234 Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B; Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B. 235 Kain and Prince, The tithe surveys, p. 140. 236 J. Maclure, Index to Maclure’s survey of the parish of Fulham 1853 (1853), HFA, F336.27 MAC. 237 Kain and Prince, The tithe surveys, pp. 137-8.

60

METHODOLOGY Direct comparison of the distribution of commercial gardens on the four land-use maps is extremely difficult as they have different scales, use a variety of schematics and the tithe maps do not actually depict cultivated land. The first task was to draw a standard map of the parish to act as a template. The earliest 1:2500 OS maps covering Fulham and Hammersmith parish, dating from between 1865 and 1871, have been re-issued on a scale of c. 15 inches to 1 mile and form the basis for the template.238 I have then redrawn the OS maps with reference to the tithe maps for both parishes.239 Roads, streams and ditches and all plot boundaries and numbers are included. The only loss of detail is that terraced housing with small domestic back areas are not separated into individual units. This was then reduced to the scale of 7 inches to 1 mile to create a detailed template of manageable size and where the acreage of each plot was known.

This template was used as the basis for producing four comparable land-use maps to the same scale and key. The land use has been divided into six categories: arable, grassland, market gardens/orchards, nurseries, osiers, and non-cultivated land (which includes housing, other buildings, parkland, brickland, commons, waste and roads).240 Using this legend (page 363) the template was used initially to present the data from the tithe apportionment schedules of 1843/5 (map 2.9). As the land use contained in the tithe schedule was not presented graphically in 1843/5 these are the first maps for the parishes to depict this land use.

238 Scale is approximately 15 inches to the mile. Old Ordnance Survey (OS) maps, London sheet 58: East Acton and Wormwood Scrubs, 1871 (Consett, 2005); Old OS maps, London sheet 72: North Hammersmith, 1869 (Consett, 2004); Old OS maps, London sheet 59: Notting Hill, 1871 (Consett, 2009); Old OS maps, London sheet 73: Holland Park and Shepherd’s Bush, 1871 (2nd edition, Consett, 1989); Old OS maps, London sheet 87 : Chelsea 1865, (Consett, 1992); Old OS maps, London sheet 100: Battersea and Fulham, 1866 (Consett, 2007); Old OS maps, London sheet 99: Putney Bridge and Fulham, 1865 (Consett, 2004); Old OS maps, London sheet 86, Hammersmith and Fulham, 1871 (Consett, 1987); Old OS maps, London sheet 47, Kensal Green, 1865 (Consett, 2003). 239 The maps were redrawn by reference to close-up photographs of the original tithe maps. 240 Nurseries and market gardens were combined on the new map after Rocque. Osiers are a type of willow used to make baskets and mats for use in the market gardens.

61

The template was then reconfigured each time to replicate the contemporary roads, watercourses, housing, field boundaries and agricultural land use, as depicted by Rocque in 1747 (Appendix 1, map 1), Milne in 1800 (Appendix 1, map 2) and Salter in 1830 (Appendix 1, map 3). From each of these maps the acreages for each category of land use were calculated by reference to the tithe plot acreages. The tithe acreage calculations are accurate, but an allowance should be made for the acreages for the other three dates to have a very small error based on the caveats concerning interpretation given above. The difficulties of recognising commercial gardens have been discussed in the context of each source map, but there remains another issue relevant to these calculations.

Assessing land use where farmer-gardeners planted vegetables as a second crop after the grain had been harvested has proved challenging. The open fields were described in 1811 as having wheat and barley in rotation with vegetables.241 Milne used stripes on the map and ‘cgf’ to depict these areas of multiple cropping in the open field while the comparable area is shown as arable by Rocque.242 For 1747 it is not known which areas remained entirely arable and which grew a mixture of farm and garden crops. For the purpose of this analysis where farming-gardening acreage is indicated it has been divided equally between arable and garden land-use while recognising that this probably underestimates the production of vegetables. Since Rocque and Salter did not depict multiple uses it has been categorised as shown. Bearing these caveats in mind, in this analysis the land use on the source maps and schedules will be taken at face value.

241 Bull, ‘Thomas Milne’s land utilization map’, p. 29. 242 Rocque, Survey, CUL, Atlas.2.74.2; Milne, Milne’s land use map.

62

Map 2.9 Land use in Fulham and Hammersmith, 1843/5, based on the tithe surveys.

63

64

THE EXTENT AND LOCATION OF MARKET GARDENS Having maps drawn to the same scale with a standardised format allows a comparison to be made of the location and extent of the gardens, and the results of a statistical analysis of the extent and location of gardening over a hundred year period are presented. Peter Atkins has pointed out ‘the dangers of inferring process from spatial form’.243 It is possible for similar patterns of land use to have emerged as a result of different influences and to avoid this pitfall supporting evidence will be used when examining the changes and in more detailed discussion that follows.

The proportions of each type of land use in each period for Fulham and Hammersmith combined are given in table 2.1.244 In 1747 arable farming was the principal land use, amounting to 37 per cent of land in the parish, with 21 per cent under grassland; 22 per cent was market gardens, nurseries and orchards; and the remaining 20 per cent was non-cultivated.245 Fifty-three years later the distribution had altered. The acreage of gardens had risen by almost 50 per cent and non- cultivated land by 20 per cent, grassland showed a slight rise, while arable acreage had halved. Even allowing for a technical change in the data due to the unknown amount of gardening on Fulham Field in 1747, and the 50:50 division of Fulham Field into market garden and arable in 1800, the decline in arable by 1800 was considerable. This acreage data is confirmed by the 1801 Home Office Acreage return.246

By the time of tithe commutation (1843/5) the decline of arable was almost complete accounting for only 9 per cent of parish land use.247 Non-cultivated land had risen to one third while the other land-use types remained around their 1800 level. Over the

243 P. Atkins, ‘The charmed circle: von Thunen and agriculture around London in the nineteenth century’, Geography, 72:2 (1987), p. 130. 244 As the 1830 map covers only Hammersmith it is omitted from this table. 245 The non-cultivated figure includes the few small commons and the large area of waste at Wormwood Scrubs amounting to circa 6% in 1747 and 5% in 1800 and 1845. 246 Home Office, Acreage returns, p. 120. 247 This data combines the land use in the two schedules.

65

Table 2.1 Proportions of land use in all Fulham parish, 1747-1843/5 (per cent per annum).

Market gardens/ Grass Non- Year Orchards Nurseries Osiers Arable land cultivated 1747 22 0 0 37 21 20 1800 32 1 1 20 23 24 1843/5 30 1 2 9 25 33 Sources: 1747 & 1800 calculated from the acreages on maps 2.9 and 2.10; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B; Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B.

100 year period the area under market gardening had increased from approximately 850 acres to 1,200 acres. This indicates that there was already a large area of market gardening by 1747 that had risen further by 1800 and then declined slightly by 1843/5. It is evident from these maps that urban development did not affect the acreages of all agricultural uses to the same extent. A visual inspection of the maps shows that by 1843/5 the agricultural use on the two sides of the parish had polarised, with grassland and arable the focus in Hammersmith and specialisation in gardens in Fulham. These varying responses are masked in table 2.1.

Table 2.2 disaggregates the data in order to demonstrate the differences in development between the two ‘sides’ of the parish. Data for 1830 from the Salter map is also included and gives additional clarity to the changes in Hammersmith. The most striking difference is the amount of land devoted to market gardening on the Fulham side. A steady increase in the proportion of market gardens is also evident in Fulham, rising from a third to over half the acreage between 1747 and 1843, although exaggerated by the probable underestimate in 1747. In Hammersmith there was also a rise from 1747 to 1800 but then the acreage fell back to the mid- eighteenth century level. For both parts of the parish the non-cultivated area increased to around a third by the mid-nineteenth century displacing both arable

66

Table 2.2 Proportions of land use in Fulham and Hammersmith, 1747-1843/5.

Market gardens Grass Non- Year /Orchards Nurseries Osier Arable land cultivated 1747 12 0 0 45 19 24

Hammersmith 1800 18 0 0 28 30 23 (% per annum) 1830 14.5 0 0 9.5 45 29.5 1845 10 0 3 14 38 34

Fulham 1747 37 0 0 25 24 13 (% per 1800 53 2 1 8 13 24 annum) 1843 57 2 2 0 7 31 Sources: 1747, 1800, & 1830 calculated from the acreages on maps 2.9-11; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B; Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B. crops and grassland. The decline was greatest in Fulham where arable use ended and grassland dwindled to 7 per cent; for Hammersmith the reduction was less with the emphasis shifting from arable to grassland.

The change was remarked upon in 1794. Despite the barley grown in Fulham being ‘distinguished for its good quality’ and ‘much sought after for feed’ it had ‘of late years decreased considerably and been supplanted by the superior profit produced by the growth of vegetables for the London market’.248 The inference to be made is that although animal feed was in demand, garden products were the preferred crop. It is clear that in the two halves of the parish the contested geographies took different courses: in Hammersmith the growth in urban development impacted on all agricultural land use after 1830, but in Fulham market gardening remained resilient, and this is now examined.

248 P. Foot, General view of the agriculture of the county of Middlesex (1794), p. 24.

67

CONTESTED GEOGRAPHIES Atherall has considered the demise of market gardening across London. He found that the model of contested land use adopted was usually too simple, taking the rational view of ‘economic man’ which ignored behavioural constraints, but he did not pursue this theory.249 By adopting the approach of contested geographies this can be explored further.

Population growth and the expansion of urban London contributed to the competition for land. The requirement for more food was a stimulus both to gardening and to grassland for dairy production, while the rising population also produced a counter- current as the demand for housing and infrastructure extended the urban fringe westwards. The earlier urban development in Hammersmith ahead of Fulham has been associated with its better road links into London, the demand for housing initially raising the value of land in the prime areas fronting the main east/west roads.250 The following discussion explores these changes through the interplay of competing factors. Firstly, the impact of soil type on garden locations will be assessed, and then the contested geographies around the extent and location of commercial gardens will be considered in more detail.

Although historians have emphasised the pressure of population growth on changes in land use, the soil type also affected the location of agricultural land use.251 While one view suggests that the location of market gardens had little to do with soil quality as they were located on man-made soil, another holds that market gardens were

249 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, ‘Introduction’, unpaginated. 250 Ibid., p. 46. 251 P. Carter, ‘Enclosure, waged labour and the formation of class consciousness: rural Middlesex c 1700-1835’, Labour History Review, 66:3 (2001), pp. 272-5; Thick, The Neat House, pp.12, 64, 101- 3; F. Fisher, ‘The development of the London food market, 1540-1640’, EcHR, 5:2 (1935), pp. 46, 54- 5, 64; Unattributed, 'Economic history: Farm-gardening and market gardening', in P. Croot, ed., A history of the county of Middlesex: Vol. 12, Chelsea (2004), pp. 150-55; E.A. Wrigley, ‘A simple model of London’s importance in changing English society and economy 1650-1750’, Past and Present, 37 (1967), p. 55.

68

located on suitable soils.252 Taking a simplified view, the parish has four bands of soil type changing in relation to the distance from the Thames, shown in map 2.10. Nearest to the river were alluvial deposits, especially to the south east, and along Chelsea creek. The remainder of Fulham, and approximately as far as King Street, Hammersmith, consisted of well-drained Thames gravel terraces, the most suitable soil for fruit and vegetable growing.253 These gave way to a band of brickearth formed of a clay loam, which stretched north towards Wormwood Scrubs, with the northern-most part of the parish being London clay, the least suitable soil for agricultural purposes.254

More detailed information about the constituents and depth of soils can be found in archaeological reports. They are available for only a few haphazard locations across the parish but reveal a more complex distribution of soil types, some of which have been subject to human intervention to alter, improve or exploit the soils for centuries. Watercourses which were anciently culverted have been discovered, a greater distribution of brickearth is suggested, and widespread alluvial deposits from successive flooding over the ages are evident. Where brickearth had been excavated the backfill consisted of a variety of soils and rubbish, together with the addition of night soil and manure, with evidence dating from before the sixteenth century of attempts having been made to introduce drainage and raise land levels.255

252 E. Willatts, ‘Middlesex and the London region’, Part 79, in L. Dudley Stamp, ed., The land of Britain: the report of the land utilisation survey of Britain (1937), p. 286; R. Richardson, ‘Metropolitan counties: Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Middlesex’, in J. Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales Volume 5, 1640-1750, I: Regional farming systems (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 253-4. 253 British Geological Survey, North London sheet 256, Solid and drift edition 1:50,000 series (1993). 254 British Geological Survey, North London sheet 256; Institute of Geological Sciences (IGS), South London Sheet 270, Solid and drift geology edition, 1:50,000 series (Southampton, 1981). 255 MoLAS (C. Haward), 81-88 Fulham High Street, FHI03 (2003), http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/siteSummariesDetailsAll.asp?year=summaries2003&borough=Hamm ersmith%20and%20Fulham, last accessed 1 October 2011; MoLAS, (N. Roycroft), Junction of Rigault Road and Burlington Road, SW6, RGT98 (1998), http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/siteSummariesDetailsAll.asp?year=summaries1998&borough=Hamm ersmith%20and%20Fulham, last accessed 4 October 2011. MoLAS is now www.MOLA.org.uk, last accessed 3 August 2017.

69

Map 2.10 Distribution of soil types in Fulham and Hammersmith.

Uxbridge Road

King Street

Source: British Geological Survey.256 Alluvial deposits Thames gravels Brickearth London clay

256 British Geological Survey, Geology of Britain viewer, http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html, last accessed 30 March 2015.

70

In a period when soil fertility was reliant mainly upon grazing animals, and before gardening methods had been in existence long enough to have improved significantly the texture of the soil, the distribution of soil types could be expected to place some limits on agricultural land use. It is evident that in 1747 soil type had some influence, since most of the market gardens were confined to the gravel terraces starting in south Hammersmith. To the north, as the depth of gravel decreased, gardens gave way to arable farming. One further arable area coincided with the open fields on Fulham Field, together with farming-gardening. Grassland could be found on three types of soil: on the narrow band of town meadows along the southern banks of the Thames and Chelsea creek where flooding occurred annually; to the north of Uxbridge Road along the western boundary; and an area of grazing on the London clay area, including the waste of Wormwood Scrubs which was common land until the late nineteenth century.257

Fifty-four years later, in 1800, the arable area was smaller and had retreated to the north of Hammersmith displaced either by market gardens, which had extended north as far as Uxbridge Road, or grassland. In Fulham the farming-gardening area of Fulham Field was smaller as enclosed market gardens had encroached, and some grassland had also disappeared to make way for gardens.

Elsewhere agricultural use had given way to excavations for brickearth. The Hammersmith tithe schedule indicated that exhausted brickland was reclaimed and some was used for market gardening, although the majority became arable.258 Surprisingly, by 1854 William Hopgood had begun gardening in the north of Hammersmith at Wormholt farm, where he had over 5 acres covered in ‘greenhouses and hot and cold frames: hence [his] independence of the cold, heavy local soil’ but requiring a considerable expenditure for glass as well as manure in order to grow

257 H. Miles, ‘The manor of Fulham’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith, p. 26. 258 Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B. In the tithe schedule Wormwood Scrubs was designated as waste represented by the large white area in the north on map 2.9.

71

garden crops.259 It is evident that soil was one of the factors restricting the location of market gardens mainly to the gravel terraces in the southern part of the parish. However, the earlier extension northwards onto apparently marginal land suggests that some gardeners knew where isolated patches of gravel came to the surface, or they were prepared to invest in improving the soil with heavy manuring.

Although soil type did influence the location of market gardens, and their resistance (or otherwise) to urbanisation, this is insufficient to explain all the patterns of change in land use. In the discussion so far the competition for land has been framed as simply the contesting geographies of urbanisation and food supply. The reality was a more complex interplay of multiple demands between new housing, arable and livestock agriculture, gardens, transport infrastructure, and brickearth extraction, which had differing outcomes. These contestations will be considered.

In Fulham during the eighteenth century traditional farming gave way to nurseries, market gardening, and the associated industry of osier growing to provide raw material for the basket-making industry. The area of commercial gardens expanded towards the Thames reducing the extent of the town meadows at the river’s edge. By 1793 the meadows were considered in Thomas Baird’s survey for the Board of Agriculture - representing Atherall’s economic man - to be of ‘very little value’ producing coarse hay worth ‘not half the price of common meadow hay’. He suggested that improving the embankments would permit their use as garden ground, the soil being naturally rich, with rents potentially rising from £2 an acre to £4 or more.260 Instead some owners decided to exploit the natural characteristics of the land by converting it to osier beds. Further northwards, arable was replaced by gardens. While the extent of farming-gardening in Fulham Field is not known for 1747 it was still extensive on Milne’s map of 1800, but by 1843 only eleven acres

259 Willson, West London nursery gardens, p. 91. From 1745 there was excise tax on glass. Its removal in 1845 may have stimulated greenhouse production. 260 T. Baird, General view of the agriculture of the county of Middlesex (1793), p. 46.

72

remained in the tithe schedule.261 The persistence of cultivation in open fields using gardening methods, and farming-gardening, where lower rents on land indicate lower revenue, also aligns with Atherall’s belief that maximising income was not the only consideration in decisions about production, although choosing a less risky crop or lower input costs may have mitigated lower income.262

The impact of population growth was not all at the expense of agricultural land. At the same time as several new country house estates replaced garden ground, older mansions with parkland were demolished and converted to gardens.263 From at least the start of the eighteenth century changes in housing development had been perceived as detrimental to local society, with fewer ‘honourable and worthy families’ or ‘magnificent’ buildings.264 Nevertheless, a Thames frontage became desirable for new gentry housing. These were occupied by aristocrats such as Lord Craven who built Craven Cottage (a romantic euphemism for a country house) around 1780 on part of Fulham Field, and wealthy professionals, such as Dr William Cadogan who built Hurlingham House in 1760 on garden ground and meadow land in south Fulham.265

Conversely on the Hammersmith/Fulham boundary one of the oldest riverfront mansions, Brandenburgh House, was demolished in 1822 and garden ground is shown on part of this area in 1845.266 At Parson’s Green parts of the former estate of Earl Peterborough were leased as gardens and to a cowkeeper in the second half of

261 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B. 262 Plan of the parish of Fulham, DL/TI/A/015/A; Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, p. 37. 263 J. Bowack, The antiquities of Middlesex; being a collection of the several church monuments in that county. Also an historical account of each church and parish with the seats, villages, and names of the most eminent inhabitants, etc. (1705-6), p. 36. 264 Ibid., pp. 35-6. 265 Dewe and Haselgrove, ‘Fulham town’, pp. 53, 58. Craven Cottage is now the site of Fulham football ground. 266 Ibid., p. 55; D. Lysons, Environs, Vol. 2, pp. 344-424. The last occupant of the house was Queen Caroline, wife of George IV. http://www.british- history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45297&strquery=caroline, last accessed 17 July 2017.

73

the eighteenth century and in 1823 Peterborough land fronting Kings Road was sold for a development of middle-class villas.267 Atherall points out that road frontages were a preferred site for urban development with commercial gardens retained on backland.268 Elsewhere in Fulham more modest villas, cottages and terraces were built in the hamlets as well as in Fulham ‘town’ itself, infilling and nibbling away the edges of agricultural land, including gardens.

A different interplay between competing demands for land took place in Hammersmith. Market gardens were moved into arable areas to make way for new housing. On Rocque’s map a few dwellings were in scattered hamlets such as Brook Green and Shepherd’s Bush, with only one large estate at Ravenscourt Park.269 Most housing was concentrated along King Street and next to the Thames, with gardens and grassland occupying the intervening space. By 1800 the main increases in urban development had occurred in these spaces, with some taking garden ground. These were villas or terraces for the gentry or middling sort, or denser housing in rows. To compensate, the market gardens moved north into areas previously arable or grassland although the northern extent of market gardens remained at the Uxbridge Road. This northern extension of gardens in Hammersmith did not last for long and began to be displaced by housing and urban cowsheds. Some of the cowsheds may well predate this period but were not indicated on the land-use maps; in 1793 Richard Whitlock was rated for cowhouses near Brook Green in south-eastern Hammersmith, and seven other cowhouses were mentioned in the same valuation.270 The capital investment needed must have been considered worthwhile.

267 B. Rough, The operation of a small business in Fulham, London, c 1760-1800, unpublished MSt, University of Cambridge (2010), p. 32; John Wilcox, Unpublished Depositions (1797-1808),TNA, C 24/2453; G. Evans, ‘Farms and market gardens’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham, p. 233; C. Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol. 2 (3 vols, 1900), p. 80. 268 Atherall, The displacement of market gardens, p. 101. 269 M. Honeybourne, ‘The ‘manor’ of Pallingswick, the leper hospital and the reformation’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith, pp. 41-4. 270 A survey and valuation of all the lands and buildings within the hamlet of Hammersmith in the county of Middlesex. Taken and made by order of the vestry of the said hamlet by John Willock (1793), HFA, PAH/1/157.

74

Some housing developments were causing problems to cultivation and threatening the success of crops in the nearby gardens. Gardeners complained about the ‘considerable number of houses [that] have lately been built … but no proper sewage is provided for any of them’; they were ‘obstructing the drainage of their lands’ causing them to become ‘injuriously wet’.271 Air pollution caused by industrial and domestic development also encouraged growers to move and in 1855 a gardener, Samuel Broadbent, won an injunction against the Imperial gasworks in Fulham restricting their operations.272 As housing development came closer, some garden leases shortened and began to include resumption clauses for ending leases.273 One factor protecting some market gardens and orchards from housing development was the high rent that landlords could charge. In 1793 a walled garden in Hammersmith achieved £16 an acre while other plots were paying £10- £12.274

As the requirements of market gardens had generated a secondary osier-growing industry so the demands of house building extended the extraction of brickearth. Additional competition for land in Hammersmith came as the value of the brickearth increased and excavations for brick manufacture took place, especially on arable land. Gardens were not immune; as early as 1726 brickfields achieved the same, and at times a higher rental value than garden ground.275 A small area of gardens between Goldhawk Road and Uxbridge Road expanded between 1747 and 1800 but by 1845 had contracted again, with some becoming brickfields. There is a certain irony in that a few gardens were located on reclaimed brickearth pits where the soil had been used to make bricks for housing, the cause of their eviction elsewhere.

271 Metropolitan sanitary commission, ‘Second report of the commissioners appointed to inquire whether any and what special means may be requisite for the improvement of the health of the metropolis’, House of Commons papers (Vol. 32, 1847-8), pp. 26-7, 79. 272 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. iii, 223; Thick, ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’, p. 89. 273 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. 4, 28. 274 Ibid., pp. 37, 46. 275 R. Bradley, A general treatise of husbandry and gardening (Vol. 2, 1726), p. 303; A survey and valuation of Hammersmith, 1793; Metropolitan sanitary commission, ‘Second report’, p. 26.

75

Part of the population growth of Fulham and Hammersmith was the migration of people to participate in gardening. Gardeners came to Fulham parish from many places: Herbert van Gheyn, gardener to Queen Catherine in Hammersmith from c. 1686, was probably Dutch; the Matyear and Poupart families were Huguenots; and James Lee, c. 1732, and the Scott brothers in 1772, came from Scotland to train as gardeners.276 There were also those who were part of the wave of migration from rural areas that stimulated the growth of London, such as Richard Burchell whose yeoman father sent him from Wiltshire in 1720 to train as a gardener in London.277

The transport infrastructure associated with urban development also encroached on the market gardens. Village lanes and cart tracks were widened and new roads cut through agricultural areas, as did the access to the new Hammersmith Bridge, opened in 1827.278 At the same time better roads improved the carting of produce to market. By the 1830s railways added more competition. Those sited to the north of Wormwood Scrubs may have been directed along the cheapest land rather than the best route but the high value market gardens were not immune. Anne Wheeldon argues that the coming of the suburban railways into Fulham marked the end of

276 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 344; K. Miller, Matyear family of Fulham, Middlesex (undated), http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kmiller/matyear.htm, last accessed 10 March 2017. George’s father, Guillame Mettayer, was a godparent at the French church in Threadneedle Street in 1755: Our heritage, http://poupartproduce.com/company/heritage/, last accessed 24 February 2017; E. Willson, James Lee and the Vineyard Nursery (1961); B. Jackson, ‘Lee, James (1715-1795)’, revised A. Pimlott Baker, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004; online edn, May 2006), last accessed 9 August, 2017; C. Webb, London livery company apprenticeship registers Vol 6 (44 vols., 1997), www.findmypast.co.uk, last accessed 8 August 2017. 277 J. Boulton, ‘London 1540-1700’, in Cambridge urban history of Britain, Vol. 2, 1540-1840 (3 vols., Cambridge, 2000 ), pp. 316-18; L. Schwarz, ‘London 1700-1840’, in Cambridge urban history of Britain, Vol. 2, 1540-1840, pp. 649-53; Richard Burchell, Letter granting freedom of the Gardeners’ Company, 1770, Freedom admission papers, 1681-1925, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. 278 ‘The old market gardens and nurseries of London, No 23’, Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardeners (12 June 1879), p. 440; P. Taylor and C. McLaren, ‘Early Fulham and its historians’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham, p. 37; Dewe and Haselgrove, ‘Fulham town’, pp. 45-6; P. Whitting, ‘A riverside walk’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith, p. 103; Pooley, ‘Hammersmith government’, p. 241.

76

market gardening.279 The proposed route of the City of London and Richmond railway in 1837 required taking the eastern edge of garden land from businesses on the boundary with Chelsea.280 The Poupart and Lee gardens were among those affected. The Lee family had already given up land in Kensington, but had expanded by occupying cheaper land in Ealing, Isleworth, and Feltham, further west and north, well beyond suburban expansion at that time. Eventually they retained only 3 acres of freehold land in Hammersmith as a show area and retail outlet.281 Their rented land in Fulham became the Versailles nursery of John Salter, while one of their landlords, the Latymer charity, having refused to renew their lease, built a row of houses on the land.282 As development increased land values and put pressure on rental levels other garden businesses acquired cheaper land elsewhere: the Bagleys had land in Wandsworth, as had the Rough family, while the Osbourns were in Sunbury and Hampton.283 During the 1860s commuter railway stations were built in Hammersmith and by 1873 the Metropolitan railway reached east Fulham. Within 10 years the district was almost all developed, and the gardening industry had ended.284

One further element in the contestations has been omitted from this discussion – the decisions to garden on enclosed land or in the open fields. Gardening in the Fulham open fields has been overlooked by scholars of agriculture. Historians have explored extensively the influences surrounding the enclosure of land and the inability of open fields to adapt to the development of specialised agriculture has been cited as a

279 A. Wheeldon, former librarian at Hammersmith and Fulham archives, personal communication, December 2009 280 F. Whishaw, Analysis of railways: consisting of a series of reports on the twelve hundred miles of projected railways in England and Wales (1837), p. 56; R. Webber, The early horticulturalists (Newton Abbot, 1968), p. 100. J. Maclure, Plan of the parish of Fulham in the county of Middlesex, 1853, HFA, H900.6. 281 Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 52-5 282 Ibid., p. 52. Lee’s nursery eventually became the site of the Olympia exhibition hall, Weinreb et al, eds., The London encyclopaedia, p. 603. 283 Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardeners, 34 (28 February 1878), p. 166; Rough family papers, Private collection; E. Willson, ‘Nursery gardens’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham, p. 241; Willson, ‘Farming, market and nursery gardening’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith, pp. 94-5. 284 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, p, 225, P. Roos, ‘Public transport in Hammersmith’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith, pp. 232-3 .

77

driving force for enclosure.285 F.J. Fisher, Malcolm Thick and Michael Havinden challenged this view and Havinden showed that increased production of livestock for the London market was accommodated within open field systems in Oxfordshire.286 One of the common fields at Sandy, Bedfordshire, was allocated to garden-grown vegetables, as they were in Chelsea.287 Richardson was of the opinion that ‘open- field agriculture and the commercialisation of agriculture in the Home Counties were by no means incompatible … Even market gardening in Middlesex – one of the most market oriented of all forms of agriculture – took place partly without the assistance of enclosure’.288 By 1635 root vegetables were grown in the common fields of Fulham, Chelsea, and Kensington, with some using garden methods, and Shaw wrote in 1879 that ‘the best cultivated market gardens round London are those in Fulham Fields’.289 However, consideration of the highly productive market gardens around London, where ‘open-field farming and the commercialization of agriculture … were by no means incompatible’, does not form part of the discussion about modernising agriculture.290 The relationship between modern, highly intensive cultivation of gardening within the framework of a customary system is an anachronism and examination of the extent and persistence of gardening in open fields in Fulham, would add a fresh dimension to this debate, but there has been insufficient space here

285 T. Williamson and E. Bellamy, Property and landscape: a social history of land ownership and the English countryside (1987); M. Turner, English parliamentary enclosure: its historical geography and economic history (Folkestone, 1980); S. Wade-Martins, Farmers, landlords and landscapes: rural Britain 1720-1870 (Macclesfield, 2004); J. Wordie, ‘The chronology of English enclosures 1500- 1914’, EcHR, 36:4 (1983), pp. 483-505; W. Tate, A domesday of English enclosure acts and awards (Reading, 1978); R. Allen, ‘Agriculture during the industrial revolution, 1700-1850’, in R. Floud and P. Johnson, eds., The Cambridge economic history of modern Britain, Industrialisation, Vol. 1 1700- 1860 (3 vols., Cambridge, 2004), pp. 96-116; M. Overton, ‘Re-establishing the agricultural revolution’, AgHR, 44:1 (1996), pp. 1-20. 286 Fisher, ‘London food market’, p. 54; Thick ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’; M. Havinden, ‘Agricultural progress in open-field Oxfordshire’, AgHR, 9:2 (1961), pp. 73-83. 287 F. Beavington, ‘Early market gardening in Bedfordshire’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37 (1965), pp. 91-100; Unattributed, 'Economic history’, pp. 150-5. 288 Richardson, ‘Metropolitan counties’, p. 260. 289 The repertories of the court of aldermen, Vol. xlix, f.262, quoted in Fisher, ‘London food market’, p. 54; C. Shaw, The London market gardens: or, flowers, fruits and vegetables as grown for market (1879), p. 1. 290 Richardson, ‘Metropolitan counties’, p. 260; J. Thirsk, Alternative Agriculture: A History: From the Black Death to the Present Day (Oxford, 1997).

78

to give this topic due consideration. Suffice to say that several attempts at promoting enclosure awards failed and enclosure was piecemeal, although by 1747 it was extensive in Fulham and complete in Hammersmith.291

CONCLUSION While rental value was certainly one determinant in the sequence of urban change, other factors were involved. In some instances the potential for higher rental income resulted in gardens replacing arable land to the north. However, Faulkner believed that by 1813 Hammersmith was predominantly an area of ‘garden-farms’; these would have attracted lower rent and may have hastened their conversion to urban development or brickfields.292 It is clear from these findings that by 1747 the transition from arable farming to gardening was well under way. Vegetables were being grown by intensive gardening methods, increasing yields per acre, although the transition was incomplete and farming-gardening co-existed. Further evidence is needed to establish the extent of vegetables being grown as field crops or by gardening methods. The acreage of fruit and vegetable production on the Fulham side of the parish rose from 1747 to 1843, as did the amount of enclosed gardens. One might postulate that the reason for the shift to gardening methods was economic, that this was the source of the largest profit, but this does not explain the retention of open fields over a complete conversion to enclosed gardens. Economic determinism may not be the whole answer: family businesses may have preferred lower risk and less capital investment; and changes in the relative proportion of root vegetables, ‘superior vegetables’ and orchards grown may have been an influence. Rental levels, the structure of leases, as well as the changes in production to accommodate the cultural appeal of new foods also need further consideration in order to permit a

291 Broadsheet, Hammersmith wastelands, 1801, HFA, DD/15/1/2; Waste at Eelbrook, Fulham, 1828, HFA, DD/14/392; P. Carter, Enclosure resistance in Middlesex, 1656-1889: A study of common right assertion, unpublished PhD, Middlesex University (1998), pp. 111, 137-9, 238; Rocque, Survey, CUL, Atlas.2.74.2. Carter identified 4 enclosure bills dated 1801, 1814, 1815, 1816, to enclose Little Wormwood Scrubs (22 acres), Wormwood Scrubs (183 acres), Shepherd’s Bush Common, (8 acres), and Eel Brook Common (14 acres), that all failed. 292 T. Faulkner, An historical and topographical account of the history of Fulham (1813), p. 394.

79

greater understanding of the processes involved. The role of the largest landowner, the bishop of London, may also have been an influence, and the administration of his estate is discussed in chapter 4.

Consideration of the contested geographies of land use in Fulham parish has provided a nuanced view of the extent and location of market gardens. Initially the contestations were posed as dichotomies, but it has become evident that they were more complex and inter-dependent. Indeed the multifaceted contestations demonstrated here reveal changes between, and within, each type of land use. The evidence shows that market gardening continued to expand into the mid-nineteenth century in places where the soil type was advantageous. Although the competition for land from population growth intensified, it did not simply result in urban development. New building did overrun some gardens, but gardens remained in parts of Fulham long after they could have been predicted to have ended. There was a complex interplay between land uses, of which gardens were one aspect, and as Atherall comments, the survival of gardens was ‘due to a combination of circumstances, not all economic’.293 The differential in the pace of urban development between Hammersmith and Fulham was a crucial factor in the survival of the gardening sector. It is a theme that will recur throughout the remaining chapters as an explanation for differences in the structure of the industry.

For this analysis I have drawn the first maps depicting the land use in the Fulham and Hammersmith tithe schedules. This chapter has established a comparable graphical and statistical basis from which to assess the development of market gardening in Fulham and Hammersmith over 100 years. In so doing it has revealed that the complexity of change was greater than previously suggested.

293 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, p. 211.

80

CHAPTER 3

THE OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE OF COMMERCIAL GARDENING

INTRODUCTION Examination of the contested geographies of land use in chapter 2 has established the spatial development of commercial gardening between 1747 and 1843/5. By the mid- nineteenth century 67 per cent of the land remained under cultivation, and on the Fulham side this was predominantly for producing fruit and vegetables.294 This raises questions about the number of people in the parish employed in gardening, the occupational structure of the industry and how this changed between 1680 and 1861. Leigh Shaw-Taylor and E.A. Wrigley recently commented that, ‘The key problem confronting economic historians who wish to reconstruct the evolving occupational structure of the economy between 1700 and 1870 is the apparent paucity of available data before the nineteenth century’.295 In this chapter the changing structure of commercial gardening in the parish and the size of the industry is addressed through the examination of a variety of sources that include occupational descriptors, linked to qualitative evidence. Close scrutiny will be made of the meaning of occupational descriptors through the way in which they were utilised. The discussion will address the wider question of ‘What was a gardener?’ as previous scholars have seen the dominance of the customary term ‘gardener’ as inhibiting their investigations.

The limited knowledge about the nature and structure of occupations in gardening in general, and in Fulham and Hammersmith in particular, was considered in chapter 1. To explore the multi-faceted nature of the occupational structure of gardening, this chapter is in five parts that build upon each other. The customary entrance to a trade was through an apprenticeship, but the master and apprentice organisation had a

294 Chapter 2, Table 2.2. 295 L. Shaw-Taylor and E.A. Wrigley, ‘Occupational structure and population change’, in R. Floud, J., Humphries, and P., Johnson, eds., The Cambridge economic history of modern Britain, Vol. 1, 1700- 1870 (2 vols., 2nd ed, Cambridge, 2014), p. 54.

81

limited application in gardening.296 Part 1 shows new evidence of how some gardeners continued to use and value this system into the nineteenth century. Parts 2 and 3 consider the increasing specialisation in the industry from a longitudinal approach utilising evidence of occupations found in parish registers and clandestine marriage registers, and in wills, but the analysis is restricted as ‘gardener’ is found to have predominated until the nineteenth century. The 1831-61 censuses provide the first comprehensive snapshots of the industry in part 4, although the reliability and validity of some of the census data is questioned. In part 5 evidence of multiple occupations is brought together to reveal the complex nature of earning a living. Throughout the chapter evidence from statistical sources is nominally linked to qualitative sources. These provide a rich context in which to interpret the results and are the basis for illustrative examples and biographies of individuals and families involved in gardening. Particular attention is given to the problem of the opacity of occupational terms and the bias that can arise from reliance on only one primary source.

Combining a longitudinal view of occupations based on apprentice records, parish and clandestine marriage registers, and wills, with evidence from the 1831 to 1861 censuses provides new knowledge from this, the first in-depth assessment of gardening occupations. These approaches inform the discussion of what constituted a ‘gardener’ and add to our understanding by demonstrating the need to view gardening occupations as a dynamic process rather than fixed and discrete activities. The occupational elements comprising the term ‘gardener’ changed over time from its all-encompassing origins to 1861, when new occupational terms had been introduced to accommodate the specialisation that had taken place. At any one time the boundaries between occupational categories were fluid and overlapping. Variations and anomalies that appear when occupations are approached through

296 D. Marsh, The gardens and gardeners of later Stuart London, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (2004).

82

nominally linked sources present a fresh perspective, revealing how the representation of an individual’s occupation could fluctuate.

The discussion that follows provides a new insight into understanding the development of the gardening industry and the problems that arise by adopting a static approach to occupational terminology within a limited array of sources. Each part begins with the relevant concepts and theories found in agriculture, business, and other historical disciplines, a critique of the sources and the methodology employed.

PART 1, MASTER AND APPRENTICE.

In early modern England the usual first step on the occupational ladder to becoming a craftsman was to be apprenticed to a master. A regulatory framework for apprentice training was established by the Statute of Artificers in 1563, based on procedures used by the London livery companies, and remained on the statute book until 1814.297 Additionally, arrangements for apprenticing poor children by the parish were established by the Elizabethan poor laws in 1598 and 1601.298 These systems have received considerable attention from historians, particularly in terms of the effect of apprenticeship on the progress of industrialisation, the weakening control of guilds over craft labour, and the decline of apprenticeship. Recent studies of apprentices no longer treat them as a homogenous group: differing experiences both within a trade and between different trades have been identified for privately

297 A. Camp, ‘Apprenticeship’, Practical Family History, 64, (2003), pp. 12-14. 298 S. Hindle, ‘ “Waste” children? Pauper apprenticeship under the Elizabethan poor laws, c 1598- 1697’, in P. Lane, N. Raven and K. Snell, eds., Women, work and wages in England, 1600-1850 (Woodbridge, 2004), p. 15.

83

placed and parish apprentices.299 The Worshipful Company of Gardeners, one of the livery companies in London, was responsible for apprentice indentures and might be expected to have played a pivotal role in training gardeners.300 David Marsh, however, has outlined the chequered history of the Company around London from its inception in 1605 into the early eighteenth century and argues that its function as a regulatory body for the industry, including indenturing apprentices, was a ‘comparative failure’ and their membership records show they attracted few members.301

This part of chapter 3 examines gardening apprenticeships, in particular assessing the effectiveness of the Gardeners’ Company, the number of gardening apprentices and the role of apprenticeship in the gardening industry in Fulham parish. Historiography relevant to the topics addressed here in relation to private and parish gardening apprentices is reviewed and the sources are discussed, before considering private and then parish apprentices. The analysis shows that, while the minimal control exercised by the Company resulted in very few private apprenticeships, the institution remained important to some gardening families. Fulham parish apprentices were placed predominantly in the gardening trade in the early eighteenth century. By focussing in detail on an occupation that has received little attention this study presents a novel view of the role of the apprenticeship system in the development of gardening.

299 C. Minns and P. Wallis, ‘Rules and reality: quantifying the practice of apprenticeship in early modern England’, EcHR, 65:2 (2012), pp. 556-79; T. Leunig, C. Minns and P. Wallis, ‘Networks in the premodern economy: the market for London apprenticeships, 1600-1749’, Journal of Economic. History, 71:2 (2011), pp. 413-43; A. Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeship and the old poor law in London’, EcHR, 63:4 (2010), pp. 915-41; J. Humphries, Childhood and child labour in the British industrial revolution (Cambridge, 2010); K. Honeyman, Child workers in England, 1780-1820: Parish apprentices and the making of the early industrial labour force (Aldershot, 2007); L. Schwarz, ‘London apprentices in the seventeenth century: some problems’, Local Population Studies, 38 (1987), pp. 18-22; K. Snell, Annals of the labouring poor (Cambridge, 1987). 300 Hereafter the Worshipful Company of Gardeners is referred to as the ‘Company’ or the ‘Gardeners’ Company’. 301 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 364-80.

84

HISTORIOGRAPHY Historians have considered private apprenticeship from several perspectives including the influence of kinship, the role of guild membership, and locational ties between apprentice and master, and these factors can also be assessed through sources for gardening apprentices. The practice of sons following in their father’s trade has been characterised as restrictive to economic growth by keeping labour in ‘stagnant trades’ and artificially limiting the amount of skilled labour available.302 Recent studies of private apprentices have demonstrated that kinship was not a major factor in the choice of a trade. Using London livery company records for 118,000 apprentices between 1600 and 1749, Leunig, Minns and Wallis found that few sons trained in their father’s workshop or trade, and estimated that 28 per cent of apprentices in London were indentured to kin, indicating that there was limited dynastic transmission. For London, Leunig et al found that ‘networks based on common institutional membership or derived from occupational relationships played only a minor role in the London apprenticeship market’.303 They conclude that placements were predominantly arranged by the apprentice’s family through a third party such as friends, acquaintances and distant kin in London.304 Similarly, from her research on 277 apprentices found in working-class autobiographies, Jane Humphries found that, ‘the wisdom of searching the periphery of kinship networks for promising openings’ was important in locating a suitable master.305 She considers that placing sons in occupations that were ‘vertically or horizontally linked’ to their father’s trade created advantages through the establishment of ‘commercial connections’.306

302 J. Humphries, ‘Rent seeking or skill creating? Apprenticeship in early industrial Britain’, in P. Gauci, ed., Regulating the British economy, 1660-1851 (Farnham, 2011), pp. 250-1. 303 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, p. 427. 304 Ibid., pp. 415-16, 419 footnote 22, 424, 434, 436. 305 Humphries, ‘Rent seeking or skill creating?, pp. 238, 251. 306 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, p. 427; J. Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships: A neglected factor in the first industrial revolution’, in P. David and M. Thomas eds., The economic future in historical perspective (Oxford, 2003), p. 96.

85

Many young men moved to London to learn a trade; travelling a long distance was not a barrier to being indentured.307 After 1700 ‘London, Middlesex, and Surrey youths accounted for more than half the total’ of apprentices in London and the flow from northern England was reduced after 1750 by the increasing local demand for labour from new industries.308 Fewer than 10 per cent of apprentices who were not kin-related came from the same place of origin as their master, rising to 19 per cent from the same county.309 Geographical ties are considered to have had little influence on the choice of master.310

Few girls or women took part in the apprentice system. From Board of Stamps documents Snell found that the small number of girls privately apprenticed in the first half of the eighteenth century were indentured into a wide range of occupations, although those of a higher class were in ‘genteel’ occupations, a characteristic that became more prevalent later through the nineteenth century requirement for respectability.311 Gadd and Wallis suggest that women rarely appeared in the lists of freemen in livery company minute books, and mainly became mistresses when they had taken over an apprentice on becoming the widow of a company freeman.312

Apprenticeships in London differed from other towns and cities as the organisation was based on single-craft companies.313 Gadd and Wallis estimate that by the end of the seventeenth century half the male population of London was in a livery company, but this amounted to ‘only a few thousand members at any one time’ for the largest

307 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, p. 435; Schwarz, ‘London apprentices’, p. 18; Minns and Wallis, ‘Rules and reality, p. 558. 308 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, p. 420; Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, pp. 93-4. 309 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, pp. 431-2. 310 Ibid., pp. 434-5. 311 Snell, Annals, pp. 293-4, 309; I. Krausman Ben- Amos, ‘Women apprentices in the trades and crafts of early modern Bristol’, Continuity and Change, 6:2 (1991), pp. 245-6. 312 I. Gadd and P. Wallis, ‘Introduction’, in I. Gadd and P. Wallis eds., Guilds, society and economy in London 1450-1800 (2002), p. 7. 313 Gadd and Wallis, ‘Introduction’, p. 4.

86

companies, and ‘only a few hundred freemen’ for most companies.314 Insufficient capital for fees meant that fewer than half the apprentices went on to become freemen, and the freedom of the City was more likely to be taken by those who were apprenticed locally.315

The timing and rate of decline in apprenticeship, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, has been the subject of much discussion.316 David Marsh has examined apprenticeships in the Gardeners’ Company, which regulated gardening in the City, much of Middlesex and parts of Kent, Surrey and Essex. Membership peaked at 258 in the mid-seventeenth century and by 1695 had fallen to 180, with significantly fewer paying their dues.317 He considers there was a ‘slow but steady number of gardening apprentices ... who took their freedom through the Company’, in addition to an unknown number of gardeners who took their freedom through other companies.318 Membership in the ‘outer western suburbs’, consisting of Fulham, Chelsea, Kensington and Isleworth, was 13 between 1661 and 1671 indicating the Company’s ‘inability to appeal to professional gardeners in the suburbs’.319 The influence of London livery companies was weak outside the City walls and Marsh’s findings indicate that for the Gardeners’ Company it was very weak.320

In 1814 the statute controlling apprenticeship and the ‘exclusive … right to practice a trade’ by livery company members and guilds was abolished.321 Subsequently, the decline in the number of apprentices is thought to have become more rapid, yet Humphries suggests that between 1821 and 1850 a third of all boys were still being

314 Gadd and Wallis, ‘Introduction’, pp. 5-6. 315 Minns & Wallis, ‘Rules and reality’, p. 570; Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, pp. 88, 95. 316 Gadd and Wallis, ‘Introduction’, p. 4; Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, p. 420; Snell, Annals, Chapter 5; O. Dunlop, English apprenticeship and child labour: A history (New York, 1912), Chapter 7; Humphries, ‘Rent seeking’, pp. 237, 239. 317 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 373-4. 318 Ibid., pp. 364, 368. 319 Ibid., p. 375. 320 Minns & Wallis, ‘Rules and reality’, p. 560. 321 Humphries, ‘Rent seeking’, p. 235.

87

apprenticed.322 Families must have expected that completing an apprenticeship would bring ‘skill–related higher earnings’, and ‘commercial connections’ through membership of a livery company.323

Turning attention to parish apprenticeships, while historians have characterised private placements as being mainly for ‘providing middling and upper-class families’ sons with … economic opportunities’, such apprenticeships were not accessible to children of ‘poor families [in order] to improve their economic status’.324 This does not mean that poor children were not apprenticed at all; rather that some parishes arranged for them to be apprenticed.325 Studies have focussed on the contribution parish apprentices made to the provision of an industrial workforce in manufacturing, through ‘bulk apprenticeship’ to textile factories, and being sent long distances away from home, especially to the north of England.326 For the period 1767-1833 Alysa Levene found about 76 per cent of a sample of 3,285 parish apprentices from Middlesex, Westminster and the City were bound into manufacturing, a ‘disproportionately heavy employer of parish apprentices’.327 This was not every child’s experience and the ‘export’ of parish apprentices was low until the late eighteenth century.328 Girls’ placements focussed on textiles with other girls going into dealing or domestic service.329 Levene suggests that it is not clear whether female parish apprentices were being trained in a trade or had another role in the household although Snell, using biographical information, found that girls placed

322 Humphries, ‘Rent seeking’, p. 239. 323 Ibid., p. 235; Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, p. 96. 324 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, p. 418. 325 Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, pp. 96-8; I. Krausman Ben- Amos, ‘Women apprentices’. pp. 227-52; P. Sharpe, ‘Poor children as apprentices in Colyton, 1598-1830’, Continuity and Change, 6:2 (1991), pp. 253-70; S. Williams, Poverty, gender and life-cycle under the English poor law, 1760- 1834 (Woodbridge, 2013), pp. 104-5. Williams, Krausman Ben Amos and Sharpe show the variation in the number of apprentices per parish. 326 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, pp. 916-7; Humphries, ‘Rent seeking’, pp. 254-8; Honeyman, Child workers in England, pp. 15, 26; Snell, Annals, pp. 278-84. 327 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 928. 328 Ibid., pp. 919, 927-9; Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, pp. 92, 98-9; Snell, Annals, p. 295; Williams, Poverty, p. 105. 329 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, pp. 927-8.

88

into apprenticeship by the parish during the eighteenth century did learn the trade of their master or mistress.330 Few children were apprenticed into agriculture as there was competition from adults employed on short-term waged contracts, yet in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Colyton, Devon, farm apprentices were commonplace.331

Parish apprentices tended to be younger than private apprentices.332 This affected the choice of masters as some City livery companies would not accept apprentices under 14 years old.333 Generally the trades chosen for parish placements were in a narrower range of ‘more lowly occupations’ with lower premiums than for private placings, but the large population in the City and Middlesex meant there was a wider choice of occupations than elsewhere.

A variety of placement strategies were used by London parish overseers. Placements could reflect the occupational profile of the parish while other overseers were ‘taking up employment opportunities where they could’.334 Some appear to have favoured specific occupations or destinations and this affected the distances children were sent.335 Katrina Honeyman found from apprentice registers in 64 parishes that there was a tendency to keep children within the parish ‘when opportunities were available’ and Paul Carter found that in Hanwell, Middlesex, in the 1780s placements were with local craftsmen.336 Local placements might have occurred when there were few poor children in a parish who needed apprenticing, a situation

330 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 922; Snell, Annals, pp. 284, 293-4. 331 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, pp. 927-31; Sharpe, ‘Poor children’, p. 254. 332 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 936; Honeyman, Child workers, p. 46; Sharpe, ‘Poor children’, p. 255. 333 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 929 and footnote 62. 334 Ibid., pp. 917, 937. 335 Ibid., pp. 931-3. 336 Honeyman, Child workers, p. 58; Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, p. 98, citing Paul Carter, ‘Poor relief strategies - Women, children and enclosure in Hanwell, Middlesex, 1780-1816’, Local Historian, 25 (1995), pp. 164-77.

89

more common in earlier periods.337 Levene found that most apprentices between 1767 and 1833 were placed out of the capital, although at least 50 per cent of London apprentices who went into manufacturing were found to have stayed in the City or Middlesex, supporting the view that not all children were sent away, even during the late eighteenth century when there was demand for labour from textile mills.338

Settlement rights and the ‘perceived burden on the poor rate’ were an ever present issue for parish officers.339 Placing out children transferred their settlement rights and potential future costs to another parish, arguably in as little as 40 days, and there is some evidence this was ‘a parish priority’ in placement choice.340 Placement strategies could result in apprentices being bound in parishes that were themselves placing children elsewhere. This ‘exchange’ of apprentices is seen as undermining the argument for strategies being based on the ‘need to move [on] potential rate burdens’.341 The use of parish apprenticeships had diminished by the time of the new poor law when many children were being supplied to families wanting cheap labour without the need for formal arrangements.342

Studies have revealed a complex picture of private and parish apprenticeship stressing the need for apprenticeships to be considered in a local context.343 The themes reviewed in the historiography can be viewed from the perspective of apprentice gardeners. After consideration of the sources the number of apprentices and the effect of the weakness of the Gardeners’ Company is discussed. Then the issues of dynastic transmission, apprenticeships in associated trades and the training of gardeners’ through other livery companies is assessed, including through five

337 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 938. 338 Ibid., pp. 917, 929, 937. 339 S. Hindle, ‘Power, poor relief and social relationships in Holland Fen, c1600-1800’, The Historical Journal, 41 (1998), pp. 86-7. 340 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 937; Honeyman, Child workers, pp. 23-4. 341 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 935. 342 Humphries, ‘Rent seeking’, pp. 255-7. 343 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 937.

90

apprentice networks that have been found. Finally, the number and characteristics of parish apprentices, and a case study of apprenticeship in a gardening family are examined.

SOURCES No single primary source offers a comprehensive record, therefore this analysis is based on four quantitative sources containing gardening apprentices. Three cover private apprentices: the incomplete court minute books of the Gardeners’ Company for the period 1764 to 1825; the Board of Stamps apprenticeship books between 1710 and 1811 which recorded the payment of stamp duty on indentures and premiums; and documents generated during the process of admission to the freedom of the City for 1681 to 1861.344 The fourth source contains transcriptions of contemporary listings of apprentices placed by Fulham parish between 1680 and 1750, and a few for 1810-32.345

The overlap between these sources varies. The parish apprentice records are the earliest documents ending predominantly in the mid-eighteenth century. Private indenture documents mainly cover the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with the three sources overlapping for the period 1764-1811. All sources include at least the name of the apprentice and master, and often the master’s occupation or livery company; some have the father’s name and occupation, the master or apprentice’s residence, and occasionally the premium paid.346 This permits nominal linkage, for example, between registering an apprenticeship indenture, admission to the company

344 C. Webb, London livery company apprenticeship registers, Vol. 6 Gardeners’ Company, 1764-1850 (44 vols., 1997); Board of Stamps: Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures, 1710-1811, TNA, IR1; Freedom admission papers, 1681-1925, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. Cliff Webb transcribed entries for apprentices from the Worshipful Company of Gardeners’ Court minute books, 1764-1872, Guildhall Library, London, CLC/L/GA/B/001. All searchable through www.ancestry.co.uk and www.findmypast.co.uk, last accessed 2 August 2017. Ancestry mainly provides images while findmypast has transcriptions of the original documents. 345 Apprenticeship indentures, June 1666 – July 1750, HFA, PAF/1/272/ 1-115; Apprenticeship indentures, March 1810 – November 1832, HFA, PAH/1/196/1-7. 346 Fathers’ names are rare after 1752 in the Board of Stamps records.

91

and to the freedom of the City. It has been found, however, that linkage is rarely possible, with only nine gardeners’ names appearing in more than one source. Personal, financial and/or documentary factors could account for this. Not all boys completed their apprenticeship, were admitted to a livery company, or became a citizen, and not all made the required payments for admission, resulting in an unknown number of apprentices missing from the records.347 Survival of documents is a problem particularly for the Gardeners’ Company while the City admission papers have gaps in the 1680s, 1770s and 1780s.348 Nevertheless, together the three sources provide extensive coverage of apprenticeships. While it has been possible to isolate all the entries for Fulham and Hammersmith in the Board of Stamps’ lists, the online indexes to the freedom of the City documents do not include ‘place’ as a search term and given their volume the search has been driven by known names of apprentices or masters.

Gardeners’ wills have been used to illustrate attitudes to apprenticeship and the gardeners’ database provides family connections. Linking apprentice records to other sources informs the interpretation, with family case studies adding insights into the operation of the apprenticeship system and the relevance of livery companies. Consideration is given first to private apprentices and then to those placed by the parish.

PRIVATE APPRENTICES The role of the Gardeners’ Company was pivotal in the functioning of private apprenticeships in certain localities and an outline of its early history is needed to understand why gardening in Fulham parish came to operate predominantly outside an artisanal structure. When the Worshipful Company of Gardeners was established by royal charter in 1605 it was permitted to regulate the trade of gardening and

347 Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, p. 79. 348 LMA, City freedom archives, Information leaflet 14 (revised 2011), www.cityoflondon.gov.uk, last accessed 19 July 2016.

92

training of gardeners in ‘the City [of London] and within six miles compass thereof’.349 The geographical extent of their authority was a much larger radius than the two miles of other companies, reflecting the location of the gardens beyond the City and Westminster. Soon after being established a legal dispute arose between ‘the Inhabitants of the Townes of Fulham Chelsey and Kensington … and the Company of Gardiners’. The Company claimed that husbandmen, living within six miles of the City, were bringing large quantities of root vegetables and peas into the markets but were not ‘under the rule and Government’ of the Company or liable to their charges. Husbandmen, who had seen an opportunity to expand into a developing market, were challenged by the Gardeners’ Company, whose actions can be interpreted variously as attempting to maintain food standards, trying to increase their revenue, or protecting the market for existing members.

The timing of the court case could not have been worse. Corn shortages in 1622-3 and 1629-31 had alerted the government to an imminent problem and the Privy Council ordered a population count in 1630 to assess the impact of a potential crisis.350 This was at a time when potential unrest in the capital caused by insufficient food was of concern to the authorities.351 The case was heard before the City Corporation’s Court of Aldermen in 1633.352 It ruled that some of the husbandmen’s produce was grown using gardening methods, but if the husbandmen were required to join the Company then it could be conceived that any gentleman gardeners who sold some surplus produce in the markets would also have to join, pay fees and be subject to the rules of a tradesmens’ company. Placing restrictions on husbandmen was considered likely to reduce the amount of produce brought to market and

349 The Worshipful Company of Gardeners, http://www.gardenerscompany.org.uk/.html, last accessed 19 July 2017; C. Welch, History of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners (2nd edn., 1900), p. 21; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 364-5. 350 J. Boulton, Neighbourhood and society: A London suburb in the seventeenth century (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 14-15; E. Leonard, The early history of English poor relief (Cambridge, 1900), p. 188. 351 R. Outhwaite, Dearth, public policy and social disturbances in England, 1550-1800 (Cambridge, 1995), pp 27-9. 352 Repertory of the Court of Aldermen No. 47, 1632-33, LMA, COL/CA/01/01/51, p. 56.

93

increase prices, supporting Outhwaite’s view that during the early seventeenth century the central authorities acted to address food shortages.353

The City Corporation’s adjudication referenced the political concerns of the government about food supply, and protecting the interests of the elite in the City, by refusing to enforce the rules requiring apprenticeship training.354 The general lack of recognition or support by the City Corporation made the Company largely ineffectual. It never had its own livery hall, lacked the status of other companies and Marsh argues it ‘was never in a position to exercise any real power or influence over the trade it claimed to regulate’. 355 The effect was that unrestricted development in the gardening industry was permitted.

Given the removal of any necessity to complete an apprenticeship to become a gardener it is surprising to see that the institution continued. From analysis of the three primary sources for apprentices 31 privately indentured garden apprentices and 11 admitted by patrimony have been found in Fulham and Hammersmith for the period 1680-1858, shown in figure 3.1.356 Twenty boys, (none were girls), were apprenticed to gardeners in the Gardeners’ Company. The remaining 22 boys were apprenticed to gardeners who were members of other livery companies, but nevertheless were trained as gardeners. The first private indenture to a master in the Gardeners’ Company found for Fulham was in 1720, there were another 10 between 1765 and 1799, and 3 more by 1817.357 By the early nineteenth century admission by patrimony became a common method of entry to a livery company, the first found

353 S. Hindle, ‘Dearth and the English revolution: the harvest crisis of 1647-50’, EcHR, 61 (2008), p. 65; Repertory of the Court of Aldermen No. 49, 1634-35, LMA, COL/CA/01/01/053, pp. 262-3; Outhwaite, Dearth, pp. 29, 44. 354 M. Thick, The Neat House gardens: early market gardening around London (Totnes, 1998), p. 23. 355 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 366. To this day the Company have never had their own hall. 356 Patrimony is the admission to a livery company on the basis of the person’s father being a member of the company, and does not require completion of an apprenticeship. 357 The case of John Bird referred to below indicates there were apprenticeships prior to this period but do not come within the period of this study.

94

Figure 3.1 Gardening apprentices by date of indenture or admission by patrimony, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Sources: Webb, London apprenticeship registers; Board of Stamps apprenticeship books, TNA, IR1; Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02; Apprenticeship indentures, June 1666 – July 1750, HFA, PAF/1/272/ 1-115; March 1810 – November 1832, HFA, PAF/1/196/ 1-7. for a Fulham gardener occurring in 1816.358 The number of apprentices admitted into the Gardeners’ Company is probably more a reflection of the survival of sources than a true count, with an unknown number missed prior to 1765. In total they represent only 1.3 per cent of the 1579 skilled gardeners in the gardeners’ database for this period, and even when allowance is made for the gaps in sources the proportion of apprentices would have been very low. 359

358 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, pp. 436-7; Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 25 August 2017. 359 This excludes labourers and other unskilled gardeners.

95

The patchy survival of data on apprentices makes it difficult to reach firm conclusions. It could be expected that the best source of information on private apprentices would be the Gardeners’ Company records and just under half (47.6 per cent) of the 42 gardening apprentices trained with a master in the Gardeners’ Company. The minute books for 1764 to 1825 record that overall 134 boys were apprenticed into the Company, but only 8 were from Fulham parish. However, this study has identified a further 12 boys who were apprenticed to masters of the Gardeners’ Company in this period confirming that the minute books are not a comprehensive source.

The question arises of why anyone chose the apprenticeship route to become a gardener. Jane Humphries found that after 1814 there remained a ‘widespread belief’ in the value of an apprenticeship.360 The attitudes of gardeners towards apprenticeship can be seen in wills over the period and these indicate the desire in some gardening families for sons, daughters or grandchildren to be apprenticed. However, no one left specific instructions for binding children as gardening apprentices. It could be that most gardeners did not consider formal apprenticeship a necessary part of training when skills could be acquired through working in a family business, particularly if a family member had been apprenticed or trained through working in the estate garden of nobility.

Historians have differing views about the nature and effect of the dynastic transmission of occupations and this can be examined for gardeners. Where their occupation is known (n=27), 79 per cent of boys’ apprenticed into gardening in Fulham had fathers who were gardeners or nurserymen.361 Almost half (46.7 per cent) the private indentures of Fulham gardening apprentices were to masters who were their father or kin.362 Using a microhistorical approach, this study has found a

360 Humphries, ‘Rent seeking’, p. 241. 361 The occupation of 8 apprentice’s fathers are not known. 362 Excluding one unknown and 11 entered through patrimony.

96

level of dynastic transmission through apprenticeship that is much higher than the 7 per cent found by Leunig et al using apprentice and master having the same unusual surname as a measure, or their adjusted estimate of 28 per cent of apprentices for all kinship links between 1600 and c.1749.363 Kin links to master gardeners in Fulham were for sons and nephews, and there is a possibility that another two brothers may also have had a kinship link to the master as no premium was taken.364 Some family relationships through maternal links have been located but given the intermarriage between gardening families in Fulham parish over a long period it is likely that some remain unidentified.365 Although based on small numbers, the results indicate significant dynastic transmission of gardening within the wider family circle. Given this degree of relationship to their master, it is unsurprising that 69 per cent of gardening apprentices were parish residents, (where their origin is known), while the most distant recruits were brothers from Scotland and a boy from Lisbon. Several apprentices who were not related to the master had a commercial link through a land transaction or a landlord/tenant relationship between their father and master. Other connections between master and father were found in probate documents in the form of a small bequest to buy a mourning ring, or as an executor or witness.366 These relationships could be expected when living in the same parish where there was a concentration of gardeners.

Humphries suggests that sons would be apprenticed into associated trades that would be useful to the family business.367 A search of all three sources containing apprentices, located a total of 59 boys from Fulham parish whose fathers were

363 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, pp. 423-5. 364 Daniel John Fitch, Letters of administration, 1858, Principal Probate Registry, Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England, [National probate calendar (Index of wills and administrations)], 1858-1966, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 12 September 2013; Will of George Matyear, 1832, TNA, PROB 11/1796/38; Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. 365 J. Harvey, Early nurserymen (Chichester, 1974), p. 12. 366 Will of William Matyear, 1782, TNA, PROB 11/1086/77. 367 Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, p. 96.

97

gardeners, who were apprenticed into 29 trades (excluding gardening).368 The choice of an associated trade is not apparent for gardeners’ sons with the exception of 5 who were apprenticed to blacksmiths and would be useful as toolmakers, repairing carts or shoeing horses. The other most frequent livery companies were the Turners which had 8 apprentices, then Vintners and Coachmakers with 4 each. These do not present any obvious link to gardening, while all the remaining trades had 3 or fewer apprentices.

All apprentices living in the rest of London who had fathers who were gardeners have been found, amounting to 284 boys who were indentured into 56 trades between 1700 and 1780. They also favoured apprenticeship to members of the Turners’ Company and the 24 apprenticed into this trade made it the most popular. The next highest were Coachmakers (17), then Barber surgeons and Painters with 14 each. Membership of these companies was of no particular benefit to gardening. This data does not support Humphries’ findings of a network of sons apprenticed into a variety of associated trades. It would seem that the most useful trade for a gardener’s son, chosen for 31 boys (10.9 per cent) was to be apprenticed as a gardener. The attraction of the Turners’ Company to sons of gardeners leaves a lingering question about whether there may be a connection to gardening apprenticeships.

The trade of the master’s livery company need not have been the occupation in which the apprentice was trained, and this causes difficulties in locating all apprentice gardeners in Fulham parish. A case in point is that of Robert Hope Mills. He was a gardener and farmer in Fulham from at least 1799 when he inherited his father Robert’s business.369 His was an uncommon surname and in 1775 a Robert Hope Mills had been apprenticed to George Speer, ‘a citizen and carpenter of

368 This search through www.findmypast.co.uk and www.ancestry.co.uk, was made in the sources given in footnote 337 which include at least 31 of the London livery companies. 369 Robert Hope Mills, 15 January 1799, Sun Insurance Office Policies, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/413/ 684903.

98

London’.370 Corroboration from the Fulham parish baptism record for January 1761, confirms Hope Mills’s age as 14 in 1775: this is the same person but there is no evidence that he was ever a carpenter.371 His father, Robert Mills, left instructions in his will that he was ‘to be carried to the grave by six of his old workmen’ who were to be given ‘a new blue apron’.372 This was highly symbolic, the blue apron was worn by gardeners after they had completed their apprenticeship and signified a collective identity.373 It seems that Robert Mills held his profession in high esteem literally to the end of his life, and adds weight to the likelihood that both father and son were trained as a gardeners. The paradox is that although he evidently respected his profession his son was not in the Gardeners’ Company but in the Carpenters’.374

As this example shows the Gardeners’ were not the only livery company through which masters were training gardeners. Custom dictated that apprentices could enter the livery company of their master, whatever trade it represented, and be trained in the master’s trade, in this case as a gardener. The number of gardeners who were members of other livery companies caused resentment within the Gardeners’ Company. The Court of Aldermen had supported the Gardeners’ concerns over this issue. In 1668 the court had ordered all gardeners who were freemen in other companies and all new apprentices to join the Gardeners’ irrespective of their master’s company, but with little effect.375 It seems that gardeners preferred the benefits from membership of more prestigious companies ranked higher among the London livery companies, over the Gardeners’ ranked 66th.376 A number of

370 Board of Stamps, Register of duties paid for apprentice indentures, 1710-1811, TNA, IR 1. 371 C. Webb, trans., Middlesex baptisms, 1543-1876, www.findmypast.co.uk, last accessed 11 April 2016. 372 Will of Robert Mills, 1798, TNA, PROB 11/1302/283. 373 J. Uglow, A little history of British gardening (2005), p. 69. 374 Robert Mills has not been found in an indenture into any livery company. 375 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 367; Repertory of the Court of Alderman, No 74 (1668) LMA, COL/CA/01/01/078. 376 M. Barnes, Root and branch. A history of the worshipful company of gardeners of London (1994), p. 22. When the order of precedence was set in 1516 for the then 48 livery companies the Fishmongers were ranked in fourth place, but the Gardeners’ Company did not exist. In 2017 the Gardeners are ranked 66.

99

apprentices were found to have the same surname and associations have been found between masters and apprentices. These are now discussed.

Apprenticeship networks During the course of this study networks of gardening apprentices have been constructed in the form of five family-based cascades (figures 3.2(A-E)) which demonstrate how successive generations of gardeners in Fulham parish were trained.377 All the boys apprenticed to the Gardeners’ Company can be found in networks based on the Bagley (figure 3.2(A)) and Burchell (figure 3.2(B)) families, while other apprentices appear in three groupings based on the Fitch, Matyear, and Plaw families (figures 3.2(C-E)), where gardeners entered the Fishmongers’ Company, the Pattenmakers’, and the Tylers’ and Brickmakers’.378 From each network the transmission of the trade is examined.379

Three generations of the Bagley family were associated with the Gardeners’ Company dating from 1772 when Richard Bagley, a farmer and nurseryman first mentioned in Fulham records in 1756, and who was probably not in the Company, apprenticed his sons Thomas Shirley Bagley and Robert Bagley to John Ives (figure 3.2(A)).380 A further four Bagleys were admitted by patrimony through their father Robert who became a City freeman. Thomas Shirley subsequently was master to four local boys. One was his nephew John Sendall Jnr. whose late father had been a Fulham gardener and whose sister married Thomas Shirley Bagley.381 In the 1830s

377 Sources: Webb, London apprenticeship registers; Board of Stamps apprenticeship books, TNA, IR1; Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. 378 The Tylers’ and Brickmakers’ are subsequently referred to as simply the Tylers’. The other relevant present-day rankings are, Carpenters at 26, Tylers at 37, Weavers 42 and Pattenmakers at 70. 379 The sources to the figures are given in the following text. 380 E. Willson, ‘Nursery gardens’, in P. Whitting ed., A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), p. 74; Webb, London livery apprenticeship registers. John Ives may have been a gardener from Shoreditch. Simon Bagley paid poor rate in Fulham from 1713 but his occupation is unknown. 381 Will of John Sendall Snr., 1784, LMA, MS9172/141B Will number 178. www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 10 May 2016. Thomas Shirley Bagley was an executor.

100

1805 |

|

WILCOX

William

SENDALL

|

1798

) 1838 (P) )

| ______|______|

John

1772

SENDALL

|

1792

y family

JohnWilliam William SENDALL JONES

Shirley BAGLEY Thomas |

the Bagle

1817 1830 (P

–

Joseph JONES

1838 -

______|______| 1797 JONES

Samuel Thomas

John IVES John IVES

______|______|

1817

George JONES

’ Company, 1772

|

Thomas BAGLEY 1817 (P)

______|______|

1773

|

BAGLEY Robert William BAGLEY 1816 (P)

|

Cascade of apprentices in the Gardeners Cascade of apprentices

Warwick BAGLEY 1816 (P)

|

______|______

3.2 (A): Figure Robert BAGLEY 1816 (P)

101

|

1795

Mathew

BURCHELL

|

William BURCHELL William

______|______|

1780

Jonathan

SKUDDER

the Burchell family

-

1795

-

| ______

|

1720

1772

Robert

William SAMPSONWilliam BURCHELL Richard

mpany, 1720

|

John

1772

SCOTT SCOTT

______| |

1770

Thomas MILTON

apprentices in the Gardeners’ Co inapprentices the Gardeners’

3.2(B) Figure of Cascade (P)) indenture or patrimony of apprentice (Date

102

| | |

the Fitch family

Henry FITCH 1818 (P)

1843

-

CLARKE

George Thomas George

1843

-

|

ompany, 1795

1800

Joseph FITCH

1770* |

Daniel FITCH Daniel

1850

CLARKE

Thomas George

|

1798

FITCH

John Daniel

or patrimony (P)) or patrimony

pprentices in the Fishmongers’ C in the Fishmongers’ pprentices

______|______|

1850

BURR

William

Cascade of a Cascade

______|______|

1795

FITCH

3.2(C): Figure indenture of apprentice (Date Freedom of the of City.*Date Rench Nathaniel

103

|

1824 (P)

MATYEAR

George Henry George

the Matyear the Matyear family

-

1824

-

|

Robert 1824 (P)

MATYEAR

|

ompany, 1778

1778

enjamin DENSLOW enjamin

George MATYEAR George

B

|

William 1810 (P)

MATYEAR

prentices in the Pattenmakers’ C inprentices the Pattenmakers’

______|______

|

1805

Joseph

3.2(D) Figure of ap Cascade (P)) indenture or patrimony of apprentice (Date MATYEAR

104

the Plaw family the Plaw

-

1851

-

|

1759

John PLAW

Thomas KAYGILL Thomas

ompany, 1759

Thomas PLAW James HOBSON James PLAW Thomas

in the Tylers’and Brickmakers’C in the Tylers’and

| |

______| | | | |

m PLAW Thomas PLAWm PLAW 1851

1768 1776 1785

c 1806 1836 (P) c

William PLAWWilliam

Ezekiel PLAW Ezekiel Willia

Figure 3.2(E) Figure of apprentices Cascade (P)) indenture or patrimony of apprentice (Date

105

two of John Jnr’s sons were admitted by patrimony.382 Two members of the Jones family were also apprenticed to Thomas Shirley and in turn one of these became master to two of his relatives.383 John Sendall and the Jones’ brothers did not pay a premium: Sendall was a relative by marriage but while no kin relationship has yet been found to the Jones family the absence of a premium makes it more likely. The son of a neighbour who was a wheelwright was also apprenticed to Thomas Shirley in 1805.384

The Bagleys were stalwarts of the Gardeners’ Company with four members rising to be Master of the Company: Thomas Shirley 1799-1800; Robert Snr. 1805-7 and 1816-17; Warwick 1820; and William 1834.385 No connections between the Gardeners’ Company and Robert’s two other sons, Charles and George have been found, despite both being gardeners.386 Although Thomas Shirley was described as a ‘citizen and gardener’ on Thomas Samuel Jones’ indenture his City admission has not been found.387 Neither has Robert Bagley Snr’s, but the date of his City admission (1781) was written on his son’s admission-by-patrimony document.388

The second network in figure 3.2(B), beginning in 1720, consists of seven apprentices. Richard Burchell, from Wiltshire, was apprenticed to William Sampson in London. There was a gap of 50 years between Richard’s indenture and the date when he obtained admission to the City and began to take apprentices, and a letter in

382 John Sendall, Sun Insurance Office Policies, 1794, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/401/624555; Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. There was a third Sendall son mentioned in John’s will (1805) who jointly inherited the gardening business; Will of John Sendall, 1805, TNA, PROB 11/1432/247. 383 The Jones’ family may have had a connection to the Bagley family as ‘Hannah Jones’ was a witness at Thomas Bagley’s marriage to Sarah Sendall at St George’s, Hanover Square in April 1784. 384 Webb, London livery apprenticeship registers. 385 Barnes, Root and branch, Appendix A, pp. 199-200. 386 Charles Bagley 1866, George Bagley1867, National Probate Calendar. 387 Indenture of Thomas Samuel Jones, 1797, Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. On reverse ‘admitted as a freeman of the Gardeners’ Company 1814’. 388 William Bagley, Letter of admission to the Gardeners’ Company and Freedom of the City (1816), Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02.

106

the freedom of the City records confirms that he did wait this length of time. 389 Unfortunately it provides no explanation for the delay. Richard had three apprentices, two from Scotland and one from Mile End, east London. The next person in the network is William Burchell, and it is likely that Richard was either William’s uncle, father or grandfather. William ought to have been in the Gardeners’ Company records but neither an indenture or his admission have been found, but he is in the Board of Stamps records as a master gardener in 1780. He took two apprentices, his nephew Mathew in 1765 and another unknown boy. Mathew inherited William’s garden business and was the last in the line of Burchell gardeners.390 Mathew’s son, another William, took a different direction in the horticultural industry, travelling the world and becoming a renowned plant collector.391 Thus at least 20 apprentices in the Gardeners’ Company in this period stem from the original three masters, John Ives, William Sampson and one unknown, in turn creating a further six masters in the Gardeners’ Company who were responsible for training more apprentices.

Outside the auspices of the Gardeners’ Company there were a further 22 privately arranged apprenticeships dating from 1730 to 1850 with most accommodated in three networks. Daniel Fitch was a farmer in nearby Kilburn when he married Elizabeth Rench and took over the Rench family garden business at Fulham (figure 3.2(C)).392 He was a member of the Fishmongers’ Company from at least 1770, the date of his freedom of the City shown on the document giving his son Henry admission to the

389 Richard Burchell, Letter of admission as freeman of the Company of Gardeners (1770), Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. There is a marriage link between the Sampson family and the Burchells in Wiltshire but with no definite tie established to the Burchell family of Fulham. 390 Will of William Burchell, 1800, TNA, PROB 11/1336/278. 391 J. Dickenson, ‘Biography of William John Burchell, 1781-1863’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004; online edn., May 2006). William Burchell brought 63,000 specimens back from Africa, Brazil and the Far East. 392 Willson, West London nursery gardens, p. 74; Elizabeth Rench and Daniel Fitch, Marriage register, St. James, Piccadilly, June 1776, www.findmypast.co.uk, last accessed 20 July 2017; Mrs Elizabeth Rench to Mr Daniel Fitch, assignment of lease, 7 February 1791, HFA, DD/106/58/1; Willson, ‘Nursery gardens’, p. 244.

107

Fishmongers’ by patrimony in 1818.393 Henry’s three brothers had been indentured previously to their father between 1795 and 1800. Two of the sons, Daniel John and Henry, also took apprentices, one was their sister’s son, the other a boy from Clapham.394 None of Daniel Snr’s sons had surviving children and following the death of the last son, Daniel John in 1858, the business was run by his two sisters Maria Fitch and Elizabeth Clarke, mother of one of his apprentices.

The network for the Matyear family (figure 3.2(D)) who were of Huguenot descent, began when George Matyear was apprenticed in 1778 to a master in the Pattenmakers’ Company and subsequently his three sons were admitted to the Pattenmakers’ by patrimony in the early nineteenth century.395 Joseph Cockerton, the son of a Fulham victualler and Matyear’s great nephew, was also his apprentice.396 The Matyears continued gardening the same land in west Fulham until 1910 when Edward Matyear died without issue leaving effects valued at £67,000.397

Establishing the occupations of the final family is much more problematic than for the previous networks, (figure 3.2(E)). Throughout London and Surrey members of the Plaw family were found in the Tylers’ and Brickmakers’ Company but there is difficulty in establishing which of them were occupied as gardeners and which were

393 Freedom admission papers, 1681-1925, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. The origins of this cascade are not certain but possibly began in 1735 through the apprenticeship of Joseph Fitch of Aldgate, east London, to the Fishmongers, London apprenticeship abstracts, 1442-1850, www.findmypast.co.uk, last accessed 20 July 2017. 394 Nathaniel Rench Fitch, 1802, Freedom admission papers, 1681-1925, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02; Daniel John Fitch, 1805, Freedom admission papers, 1681-1925, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02; Joseph Fitch, 1809, Freedom admission papers, 1681-1925, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02: Letters of administration, Daniel John Fitch, 1858, National probate calendar. 395 K. Miller, Matyear family of Fulham, Middlesex (undated), http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kmiller/matyear.htm., last accessed 10 March 2017. George’s father, Guillame Mettayer, was a godparent at the French church in Threadneedle Street in 1755. 396 Freedom admission papers, 1681-1925 LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02; Will of Joseph Cockerton, 1853, TNA, PROB 11/2180/318, 397 William Matyear, 1910, National Probate Calendar; G. Evans, ‘Farms and market gardens’, in P. Whitting ed., A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), pp. 231-2. A. Wheeldon, ‘From the archives. The last farm in Fulham’, Hammersmith and Fulham News (24 March 2009), p. 46.

108

actually in the building trade, not helped by the repetition of forenames through the generations. It appears that in Fulham each generation had one gardener and at least one in an occupation that was related to the building trade. No apprenticeship has been found for John Plaw Snr. who was a gardener in his will when he mentioned four sons, John, Ezekiel, Thomas and James, the latter being ‘overseas’.398 The other three sons were apprenticed into the Tylers’ Company.399 John Jnr.’s biography indicates he began as an apprentice bricklayer and went on to become a renowned architect, first in England and later in Canada.400 Thomas inherited his father’s gardening business and was described as a gardener in his will of 1837, yet the apprenticeship records show his master was John Plaw Jnr., his brother.401 When James Hobson was apprenticed to John Jnr. nine years later he was described as a ‘surveyor’.402 Thomas’s son was admitted to the Tylers’ Company by patrimony in 1836: he was 30 and was admitted just before his father’s death, which suggests that they wanted to keep membership of the livery company in the family for use by future generations.

This leaves Ezekiel. His role is a problem as his will does not give any clue to his occupation.403 He was apprenticed in 1768 to ‘John Plaw’ probably his brother, who had finished his own apprenticeship 8 years earlier, although the lack of ‘Jnr.’ lends doubt. Ezekiel and his brother Thomas, together with Thomas’s son had borrowed money on a bond to develop their freehold garden land in Fulham for housing.404 The evidence points to Ezekiel not being a gardener, but rather a builder or developer. In

398 Will of John Plaw, 1785, TNA, PROB 11/1130/25. 399 John Plaw, 1759, Ezekiel Plaw, 1768, Thomas Plaw, 1776; London apprenticeship abstracts, 1442- 1850, www.findmaypast.co.uk, last accessed 20 July 2017; Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02; Board of Stamps: Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures, 1710-1811 (TNA), IR 1. 400 I. Rogers, Dictionary of Canadian biography (Toronto, Canada, 1983), http://www.biographi.ca/en/index.php, last accessed 21 August 2017. 401 Will of Thomas Plaw, 1837, TNA, PROB 11/1888/184. 402 James Hobson, 1785, London apprenticeship abstracts, 1442-1850, www.findmaypast.co.uk, last accessed 20 July 2017 403 Will of Ezekiel Plaw, 1835, TNA, PROB 11/1842/362. 404 Will of Thomas Plaw, 1837, TNA, PROB 11/1888/165; C. Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol. 3 (3 vols., 1900), p. 117.

109

the 1851 census Ezekiel’s son William was a hot-house designer, and he had his own son as his apprentice.405 William had combined gardening knowledge with building skills to develop the business in a new direction, taking advantage of the demand for hot-houses in the Victorian era and entering a new specialism associated with gardening.406 Thus there was only one gardener in each generation of this family, but it appears that once again it began with a father wanting his sons to be part of a livery company and to receive a formal training.

This case is an example that supports Humphries’ view that sons were apprenticed into occupations that enhanced business connections, in this instance utilising their land in a period of urbanisation and becoming developers, and also building hot- houses. This explanation has been given at length to demonstrate that despite linking many sources, doubts can remain – for instance, there may have been two gardeners at the same time called John Plaw. It is likely that more garden apprentices are also ‘hidden’ in other livery companies, the Turners’ Company being a strong candidate. The cascades demonstrate there was dynastic transmission of gardening in a few families. This is in conflict with Leunig et al’s general findings, however, a microhistorical approach is required to identify familial connections such as those shown here.

In addition to the apprentices in these networks eight other private indentures occurred between 1687 and 1803. Two of these concern the Millett family in Fulham, where John ‘apprenticed himself’ after the death of his father to William Lane, of the Weavers’ Company in 1687, probably a relation by marriage, and then the same John Millet took John Martins as an apprentice in 1713.407 Robert Hope Mills has already been mentioned, and two more local boys were apprenticed to their

405 Census returns, 1851, Middlesex, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule TNA, HO 107/1471. 406 B. Elliott, ‘Commercial horticulture in Victorian London’, in M. Galinou ed., London’s pride: the glorious history of the capital’s gardens (1990), p. 173. 407 Will of Thomas Millett, 1680, LMA, MS 9172/69 Will Number: 228; Note from Weavers Hall, Freedom admission papers, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02.

110

fathers. The circumstances of the remaining three are unknown, although one was Dunstan Keirby, apprenticed in 1713, who was probably grandson to Dunston Kerbey, a gardener in Fulham who died in 1682.408

Membership of a livery company must have contributed in part to the success of the Bagley, Fitch, and Matyear families who had the most extensive garden acreages in the Fulham and Hammersmith the tithe apportionment schedules.409 It signified their professionalism and recognition of their business acumen, but also brought commercial connections, was a reinforcement of trust reducing costs and risks, raised their social status, and offered the prospect of higher office through citizenship. In the land tax for 1801 the annual rental value of property of livery company members was high. Mathew Burchell’s was valued at £311, George Matyear’s at £152 and the Bagley family at £254.410 But other families with large garden businesses such as William Dancer, with land valued at £144 in 1801, and the Lee family, valued at £154, do not appear in the records of private apprenticeship as either masters or apprentices.411 Both the Dancers and the Lees were nurserymen, with James Lee Snr. having received his training in the employment of nobility.412 This type of training was a common substitute for a formal apprenticeship in order to become a nurserymen.413 The Dancers had been gardening in Fulham from before 1657 and the family’s adaptation from farming to gardening is discussed in part 2 of this chapter,

408 Probate inventory of Dunston Kerbey, 1682, TNA, PROB 4/19189. 409 In the tithe schedules 1843/5 the Bagley family were occupiers of 210 acres, Matyear family 131 acres and Fitch 110 acres. Some of the Burchell’s garden land went to the Fitch family after Mathew Burchell died in 1830. 410 Mathew Burchell, Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1801, LMA, MR/PLT/4810; George Matyear, Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1801, LMA, MR/PLT/4809; Bagley, Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1801, LMA, MR/PLT/4809; Fifty years later these were still large businesses, being referred to in Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 7 August 1853 as ‘Messrs, Bagley, Finch and Matgear [sic] … some of the principal growers that attend Covent-garden market’. 411 William Dancer, Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1801, LMA, MR/PLT/4809; James Lee, Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1801, LMA, MR/PLT/4858; www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 17 August 2017. 412 Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 43-4. 413 Harvey, Early nurserymen, p. 37.

111

but no evidence about training has been located.414 For some other successful families who do not appear in apprenticeship records, training on estates may have occurred in earlier periods. Mark Casson argues that acquiring specialist training was necessary for the successful continuation of family firms and the family cascades suggest this was occurring in some gardening families.415 It is evident that different families had varying views of apprenticeship but the reasons behind this remain open to discussion.

There was just one mistress gardener, Susanna Lane, and she had taken over the gardening business after her husband died.416 Women make few appearances in the apprentice records but the will of William Ford (1655), a gardener in Fulham, gives an indication of what might happen when a master died: in case after my decease John Bird my apprentice shall not be minded to serve out his time with my wife and of such his mind and pleasure shall give my said wife notice within three months after my decease then I give unto him forty shillings being so much I had of his friends when he first came unto me.417 The inference can be drawn that if this apprenticeship was to continue with Ford’s wife, admittance to a livery company on completion would be a possibility.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from this analysis of private apprenticeships, livery companies and networks. The large difference between the number of apprentices and the skilled gardeners in the gardeners’ database supports the view that apprenticeships were not the normal route to obtaining training as a gardener. It also suggests that the term ‘gardener’ represented people with a range of skill levels. The haphazard survival of the primary sources would result in garden apprentices

414 Will of Nathaniell Danncer, 1657, TNA, PROB 11/267/226. 415 M. Casson, ‘The economics of family firms’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 47:1 (1999), pp. 17-21. 416 Parish registers, All Saints, Fulham, LMA, P77/ALL/001-6. William Lane was buried April 1699. 417 Will of Willliam Ford, 1655, TNA, PROB 11/244/468.

112

being even more under-represented if only one of the three sources had been used. Although there was no legal requirement to be apprenticed, nevertheless a few families patronised the institution and became members of livery companies over successive generations. Although the sample is small, it is argued here that in a new and developing industry the acquisition of knowledge through formal training was needed initially by some families to develop a competitive business but transmission of knowledge in-house to later generations proved successful. It also points to gardeners, even in larger businesses, having ‘hands on’ training, and links to other documents indicate that owners actively participated in their businesses. The concentration of the few gardening apprenticeships in large businesses suggests a continuing family belief that membership of a livery company was socially and commercially desirable.

Gardeners already had business connections through family, marriage and being part of a gardening community but some obtained enhanced commercial advantages and social benefits from being part of a livery company and the prestige attached to obtaining the freedom of the City, as Jane Humphries found.418 Perpetuating the link required one member of the family in each generation to complete an apprenticeship. A higher level of dynastic transmission among gardening apprentices (46.7 per cent) continued in Fulham than given in the findings of Leunig et al for all trades, albeit for only a few apprentices over a long period.419 However, when gardeners placed sons as apprentices in other trades there is no evidence to suggest that they were favouring industries associated to gardening except for the Plaw family’s connection to the building trade. Yet businesses like the Lee family nursery were immensely successful apparently without being members of a livery company, having acquired skills and built connections through their training in gardens of the nobility.

418 Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, pp. 89-90. 419 Leunig et al, ‘Networks’, p. 424.

113

The findings confirm those of Marsh that the demise of the apprenticeship system for gardeners occurred early, if it ever existed at all to any large extent, the ineffectual role of the Gardeners’ Company from its outset being a major factor.420 The effect of the outcome of the Company’s court case in the seventeenth century can be considered to have parallels with the nineteenth-century repeal of the statute of artificers outlined by Jane Humphries. The early removal of effective regulation over gardeners allowed unrestricted growth in the new industry.421

PARISH APPRENTICESHIP Although few children were privately indentured as gardeners, other children were placed as gardening apprentices by Fulham parish poor law officials. Parish apprentices do not appear in the Board of Stamps books, as payment of duty was not required, but some Fulham parish records remain.422 Trends that have been observed elsewhere in the placement of parish apprentices are mirrored in the placement of Fulham boys and girls, although these are for an earlier date than most studies which focus on the relationship between parish labour and the development of manufacturing.

The predominance of gardening in the local economy was reflected in parish apprenticeships. From 1680 to 1750 a total of 109 children (59 boys and 50 girls) were apprenticed by the parish. Of these 13 boys and 8 girls were apprenticed into gardening, 17 in Fulham, 3 in Chelsea or Putney, and one not known. Additionally details of 6 boys and 1 girl who were apprenticed between 1810 and 1832 have been found, but none were apprenticed to gardeners.423 Overall 43 per cent of children were placed in Fulham and 67 per cent placed out, but 81 per cent apprenticed into

420 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 365. 421 Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships’, p. 78. 422 Apprenticeship indentures, June 1666 – July 1750 HFA. PAF/1/272/1-115; Apprenticeship indentures, March 1810 – Nov. 1832, HFA, PAH/1/196/1-7. 423 Apprenticeship indentures, June 1666 – July 1750 HFA. PAF/1/272/1-115; Apprenticeship indentures, March 1810 – Nov. 1832, HFA, PAH/1/196/1-7. Destinations are unknown for three children.

114

gardening were placed within the parish, accounting for a third of all those placed within the parish. One child was placed out into gardening in 1709 and the others between 1730 and 1744.

Fulham children were bound into 43 different occupations, of which gardening was the most frequent, while 33 occupations had only one or two apprentices. The children placed out went into 36 occupations but those placed within Fulham and Hammersmith went into a more restrictive range of 16 occupations, the primary sector accounting for 62 per cent of all apprentices placed within the parish.424 For apprentices placed in all other parishes 21 per cent went into gardening, agriculture and fishing and all but two of these were in parishes adjacent to Fulham. Overall 37 per cent were placed in the primary sector (figure 3.3). This level is much higher than found by Levene whose sample had only 4.9 per cent of boys apprenticed into agriculture and fishing, and 0.4 per cent of girls, although with the exception of St Luke, Chelsea, Levene’s parishes may not have had local opportunities in primary industry. Only one of the children apprenticed into gardening was placed with a master who had the same surname.425

APPRENTICESHIP IN THE MILLETT FAMILY The Millett family were a gardening dynasty who appear in the gardeners’ database from 1680 to 1841. William Lane has already been mentioned in connection with a private apprentice, John Millett in 1687, who was admitted to the Weaver’s Company.426 Edward Millett was apprenticed by the parish in 1710 to Susanna Lane. He was aged about 12 years old, typical of the ages found in studies of parish apprentices.427 Some of his family’s circumstances are known. The Milletts were a

424 Includes 2 husbandmen, 2 farmers and 8 fishermen. 425 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, pp. 927-8. 426 John Millett, 1694, Freedom admission papers, 1681-1930, LMA, COL/CHD/FR/02. 427 Apprenticeship indentures June 1666 – July 1750, HFA, PAF/1/272/ 1-115; Composite births, marriages and deaths, All Saints, Fulham, 1698-1707, LMA, P77/ALL/001; Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, p. 929.

115

Figure 3.3 Placement of Fulham and Hammersmith parish apprentices by occupation and location, 1680-1750.

Source: Apprenticeship indentures June 1666 – July 1750, HFA, PAF/1/272/ 1-115. gardening family and Edward was the grandson of Thomas Millett, a gardener. In Thomas’s will of 1680 Edward’s father, Giles, was left £30 to be paid to him on his mother’s death, while the garden business was left to his brother, another Thomas.428 Evidently this did not secure the family’s well-being as by 1700 Giles had pawned his feather bed for two guineas and in 1701 Edward’s brother was apprenticed by the parish to a fisherman in Fulham.429 In the same year that Edward was apprenticed (1710), Giles Millett, also a gardener, married Sarah Lane, both from Fulham, and the families became connected by marriage.430

William Lane’s apprentice, John Millett, became a citizen of London, and was famous for fruit growing. Richard Bradley, a contemporary commentator on

428 Will of Thomas Millett, 1680, LMA, MS 9172/69 Will Number 228. 429 Will of William Morris, 1710, LMA, MS 9172/103, Will Number: 242. 430 Clandestine marriages, 1710, TNA, RG 7. www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 3 May 2016.

116

agriculture, remarked on his exceptional skill in 1726: ‘if early fruit is our desire Mr Millet’s at North End [Fulham] … affords us Cherries, Apricocks and Curiosities of those Kinds, some Months before the Natural Season’.431 It would be interesting to know why John Millett did not take his nephew, Edward, as an apprentice. Despite some family members having financial difficulties the wider family continued successfully in gardening, over 100 years, into the nineteenth century in the hands of another John Millett, seemingly another gardening dynasty based on early an apprenticeship.432

CONCLUSIONS The Fulham results partly support Levene’s argument that the place of origin and sectors of economic expansion influenced the choice of occupation for parish apprentices. Placements within Fulham parish and nearby parishes favoured agriculture, fishing and especially gardening which were predominant industries, while out-placement was to a much wider range of occupations.433 The number of apprentices placed into the primary sector supports the view that overseers favoured placements in the local economy in the early eighteenth century, but as the number of parish apprentices rose out-placement was more likely. There are several possible reasons to explain this change: gardening businesses may not have wanted apprentices, or the benefit to the parish of settlement elsewhere became more important as the number of dependents rose. Later evidence is insufficient to examine whether Fulham overseers began to favour the long distance moves that are not present in the early period.

431 R. Bradley, A philosophical account of the works of nature (1721), p. 184. Bradley was the first professor of botany at the University of Cambridge, History of the department, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, http://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/about/history, last accessed 29 April 2016. 432 Land tax assessment book, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1832, LMA, MR/PLT/4837, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 20 July 2017. 433 Levene, ‘Parish apprenticeships’, pp. 918, 929; J. Bowack, The antiquities of Middlesex; being a collection of the several church monuments in that county: also an historical account of each church and parish (1705), p. 36; T. Faulkner, An historical and topographical account of Fulham; including the hamlet of Hammersmith (1813), pp. 4-5, chapter 2.

117

The data confirm Honeyman’s view that the parish apprenticed children into low status occupations, but as gardening was the predominant occupation for both private and parish apprentices, in this instance low status need not also mean low income, as will be seen in chapter 5. The apprentice system and dynastic transmission of trades have been associated with economic stagnation.434 It is evident that in Fulham parish from the seventeenth century gardening apprentices were not a large part of the industry at a time when commercial gardening was developing into a flourishing economic sector. This analysis has shown that, from the early seventeenth century, husbandmen and farmers were free to change production to gardening in response to new market opportunities and the gardening industry could develop without the hindrance of livery company regulations. It is likely that, in the transition from farmer and husbandman to gardener, a few families used apprenticeship, or training in nobility gardens, to acquire new skills, but more evidence is needed to find the extent of this practice. The few who chose to continue within the system of private apprenticeship were characterised by the trade being passed from father to son and centred mainly on the large, profitable garden businesses, suggesting that neither the apprentice system nor dynastic transmission had restricted their development.

PART 2, GARDENING OCCUPATIONS IN PARISH REGISTERS

& CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE REGISTERS

The discussion of masters and apprentices has shown that this artisanal framework played a niche role in commercial gardening, leaving questions outstanding about the nature of the occupational structure that was in place. The industry began to emerge as a specialisation from general agriculture in the sixteenth century but the relative

434 Humphries, ‘Rent seeking’, pp. 250-1.

118

sizes of the gardening, farming-gardening and farming workforce in the parish have not been established, nor the form of subsequent occupational specialisation. Historians have used Anglican parish registers to construct the broad occupational structure of England and Wales, but they have not applied them specifically to gardening occupations.435 This omission is addressed here using Anglican and other vital registers to explore gardening occupations.

The value of parish registers is that they not only offer a longitudinal view but, as individuals can appear several times, nominal linkage can also provide insights into any occurrences of occupational change. Data concerning the size of the industry obtained using this method is a relative measure estimating the proportions of each type of employment in the parish, not a count of the number employed. Parish registers benefit from not being selective: they include people from all levels of society in the parish, from the baptism of the child of a ‘poore traveller’ to Charles Blomfield, bishop of London, baptising five of his children, at All Saints church, Fulham.436

In this part of the chapter several approaches are taken. Initially the occupations of fathers in the Anglican baptism registers are used in a standard demographic approach to estimate the relative size of the industry in the parish, and to consider changes in occupational structure for the time periods of 1698-1707 and 1813-

435 E.A. Wrigley and R. Schofield, The population history of England and Wales 1541-1871: a reconstruction (Cambridge, 1989); P. Kitson, ‘The recording of occupations in the Anglican baptism registers of England and Wales, 1690-1799’, (2007), http://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/, last accessed 4 May 2016; P. Kitson, L. Shaw-Taylor, E.A. Wrigley, et al., The creation of a ‘census’ of adult male employment for England and Wales in 1817, CWPESH No. 4 (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 1-41. http://www.econsoc.hist.cam.ac.uk/working_papers.html, last accessed 4 May 2016. 436 Parish registers, All Saints, Fulham 1704, LMA, P 77/ALL/001; Baptism registers, All Saints, Fulham, 1829-36, LMA, P77/ALL/006. www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 10 October 2013.

119

1836.437 This is then broadened into a count of entries for gardening and agricultural occupations, and labourers in all the extant registers for Fulham and Hammersmith, around the turn of the eighteenth century, and entries for Fulham grooms in the registers of clandestine marriages in London, in order to search for any traces of the transition from agriculture to gardening and further specialisation. An examination of the incidence of individuals occupied in gardening and agriculture is made and any changes in their occupations are traced. A case study of the occupations over several generations of one gardening family - the Dancers - reveals their transition from agriculture. Finally, Fulham parish gardeners appearing in the City of London clandestine marriage registers are considered between 1700 and 1754, as they cover a period when occupations were not recorded in the parish registers.

SOURCES From the mid-seventeenth century two sets of Anglican registers were kept for Fulham parish. The registers of the parish church of All Saints, Fulham, survive for marriages from 1664 and for baptisms and burials from 1675, while those of St Paul’s, the chapel of ease in Hammersmith, are all extant from 1664.438 Two separate parishes were formally created in 1834. The poor quality of both the handwriting and the reproduction on microfilm make them difficult to use. Access to non-conformist registers is a problem. The earliest are for the Friends Meeting House, Hammersmith, from 1666 to 1748, but the father’s occupation is not given in the baptism register, is haphazardly entered for burials but is complete for marriages although there were

437 Parish registers: All Saints, Fulham, 1674-1735, LMA, P77/ALL/001; Parish registers, St. Paul, Hammersmith, 1671-1717, HFA, DD/71/2-4; Parish registers, All Saints, Fulham, 1813-1836, LMA, DL/T/020/023-76; Parish registers, St Paul, Hammersmith, 1813-1826, LMA, DL/T/031/006-43, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 30 August 2017. These form the Parish register database. Parish registers for St Peter, Hammersmith begin in November 1836. 438 Hammersmith and Fulham Archives, Records of Church of England Parishes, http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Leisure_and_Culture/Libraries/Archives/23436_Records_of_Churc h_of_England_Parishes.asp?LGNTF=32, accessed 8 November 2012. On 23 July 2016 this page was found to be no longer available, despite being a useful asset on the history of parishes in the district.

120

only 12 in total.439 Several other non-conformist chapels existed with registers beginning in 1758 but at the time of writing they are inaccessible and the amount of data they contain is unknown.440 Marriage registers from four clandestine chapels in London are available between 1680 and 1754.441 Most record the bride and groom’s names, the groom’s occupation, and the parishes they came from.

Recording occupations in the All Saints and St Paul’s registers was irregular. Baptism registers give the father’s occupation from 1698 to mid-1707 (with 1702-03 missing), and then from 1813 onwards, a pattern that has been found in registers elsewhere.442 Occupations for marriages and burials are present around the turn of the eighteenth century and reappear in marriage registers from 1837 and later for burials. The early marriage registers include the groom’s name and occupation, and the bride’s name, with their fathers’ names and occupations given from 1837. Burials in the early period include occupations of the deceased or a child’s father. The survival of legible baptism registers containing occupational data from both sides of the parish coincides for only 6 years, 1699-1700, 1704-05, 1813 and 1815, making it very difficult to extrapolate trends. In the nineteenth century the greater increase in population on the Hammersmith ‘side’ than the Fulham ‘side’, and the changing land use shown in chapter 2, have to be taken into consideration in the interpretation of

439 Marriages 1677-1741, Society of Friends, Hammersmith, Births 1658-1750, Freindes [sic] children in and about Hammersmith, Burials, 1676-1752, HFA, ND/4/14. These are extracts for Fulham and Hammersmith transcribed (unattributed) from: General register office, Society of Friends’ registers, Monthly meetings of Westminster, Marriages, TNA, RG 6/1507; General register office, Society of Friends’ registers, Monthly meetings of Westminster, Births, TNA, RG 6/1516; General register office, Society of Friends’ registers, Monthly meetings of Westminster, Burials, TNA, RG 6/1512. 440 These registers are a casualty of the closure and later move of Hammersmith and Fulham archives, and the division of records between LMA and HFA. As of 13 June 2016 their location is uncertain. This also applies to the Hammersmith Catholic baptism registers for 1710-1838. Items that have been transferred to the LMA can now (2 August 2017) only be viewed by appointment. 441 Registers of Clandestine Marriages and of Baptisms in the Fleet Prison, King's Bench Prison, the Mint and the May Fair Chapel, 1667-1754, TNA, RG 7, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 19 June 2016. The registers start from 1667 but the first groom given as a Fulham gardener occurred in 1700. The registers are incomplete for 1750-54, with only one gardener entry in 1753 and one in 1754. 442 Kitson, ‘The recording of occupations’; P. Lindert, ‘English occupations, 1670-1811’, Journal of Economic History, 40:4 (1980), pp. 687, 689.

121

results.443 The absence of occupations from the registers for long periods and their generally poor quality are considerable drawbacks.444 They prevent a useful longitudinal representation of the structure of gardening occupations but permit observations to be made on changes in the industry for 1698 to 1707 and to a lesser extent from 1813 to 1836.

Demographers have identified several problems in using Anglican baptismal registers that affect their value for analysing occupational structure. These include the under-representation of young unmarried men and older men, the absence of occupations for women, the opaque meaning of the term ‘labourer’, and the incomplete coverage of Anglican registers due to non-conformity.445 Also they omit ancillary occupations or by-employments.446 Evidence of gardeners having another primary, or secondary, occupation has been found in deeds, trade directories, the census, and probate records but not in parish records.447 Sebastian Keibek argues that ‘by-employment does not represent a valid reason to distrust inferences made on the basis of conventional sources of occupational data’ including parish registers, and if they were included the occupational structure would not differ significantly from a

443 See chapter 1, p. 39 for population increase in Fulham and Hammersmith, and chapter 2, pp. 66-7 for changing land use. 444 E.A. Wrigley, ‘Birth and baptisms: The use of Anglican baptism registers as a source of information about the number of births in England before the beginning of civil registration’, Population Studies, 31:2 (1977), p. 281. 445 Kitson et al, ‘The creation of a census’; S. Keibek, ‘Allocating labourers to occupational sectors using regression techniques’, Working paper No. 28 (Campop, University of Cambridge, 2016) , http://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/, last accessed 4 May 2016. 446 S. Keibek, ‘By-employments and occupational structure in pre-industrial England’ (Working paper, Cambridge, 2016), http://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/paper30.pdf, last accessed 21 July 2017, p. 1. 447 J. Burnby and A. Robinson, “Now turned into fair garden plots” (Stow), (1983), p. 3; Unattributed, 'Economic history: Farm-gardening and market gardening', in P. Croot, ed., A history of the county of Middlesex: Vol. 12, Chelsea (2004), p. 150; J. Martin, ‘The social and economic origins of the Vale of Evesham market gardening industry’, AgHR, 33:1 (1985), p. 47.

122

structure that excluded them.448 Leigh Shaw-Taylor and E.A. Wrigley conclude that as the ‘fertility differences between major occupational groups were limited’ and in 1851 ‘occupational structure did not vary very much by age … counts of occupations derived from baptism registers should provide a good picture of adult male occupational structure’.449

Registers of clandestine marriages in London between 1667 and 1754 are used here for the first time to study gardeners. Images of the original registers can be viewed online, and are searchable by place of residence.450 This type of marriage peaked in the late seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth century. They are considered by Jeremy Boulton to have involved ‘all social groups, including many of the middling sort in London’ as they began to emulate the practice of the nobility.451 Boulton estimates that in 1700 between a quarter and a third of all marriages in London took place at the Fleet prison, rising to at least half and possibly nearer 70 per cent by 1740.452 In her study of marriage in Clerkenwell, London, Gill Newton found clandestine marriages were a ‘major factor in the huge metropolitan marriage market’, and accounted for half the marriages between 1695 and 1750 where at least one party gave Clerkenwell as their residence, amounting to 2,500 marriages.453 Newton rejects the term ‘clandestine’ and views them instead as an alternate private form of marriage chosen by many.454 As 1,028 male Fulham parishioners married in

448 L. Shaw-Taylor and E.A. Wrigley, ‘Occupational structure and population change’, unpublished working paper No. 26 (Dept. of Geography, University of Cambridge, undated, c. 2014), p. 6, summarising S. Keibek, ‘By-employment and occupational structure in early modern England’ unpublished mss, (Dept. of Geography, University of Cambridge, 2012). http://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/, last accessed 4 May 2016. 449 L. Shaw-Taylor and E.A. Wrigley, ‘Occupational structure and population change’, in The Cambridge economic history of modern Britain, Vol. 1 (2 vols., 2014), pp. 57-8. This last statement is examined in part 4 of this chapter in the context of gardeners. 450 Registers of Clandestine Marriages and of Baptisms, 1666-1754, TNA, RG 7. 451 J. Boulton, ‘Clandestine marriages in London: an examination of a neglected urban variable.’ Urban History, 20:2 (1993), p. 209; G. Newton, ‘Clandestine marriages in early modern London, when, where and why?’, Continuity and Change, 29:2 (2014), p. 155. 452 Boulton, ‘Clandestine marriages’, p. 201. 453 Newton, ‘Clandestine marriages’, pp. 151,160-1. 454 Ibid., p. 176.

123

this manner between 1700 and 1754, including 344 gardeners, they cannot be ignored.455

ANGLICAN BAPTISMS Tables 3.1(A-B) (presented graphically in figure 3.4) show the total number of fathers baptising children at All Saints or St Paul’s in the early-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with gardener, husbandmen, labourer and farmer/yeoman itemised for 1698-1707, and for 1813-36, the addition of nurseryman/seedsman and market gardeners, which were new occupational terms being used, and the exclusion of husbandman as it no longer featured in the baptismal register.456

Table 3.1(A) Male gardening and agricultural occupations in All Saints, Fulham (F) and St Paul, Hammersmith (H) baptismal registers, 1698-1707. Gardener Husband Farmer / All Year Gardener Labourer as % of all man (Yeoman) Baptisms baptisms 1698 (F) 11 3 28 66 16.7 1699 (F) (H) 22 3 28 8 116 19.0

1700 (F) (H) 14 6 31 3 / (1Y) 111 12.6 1701 (F) 8 5 16 2/ (1Y) 59 13.6 1704*(F) (H) 15 30 3 83 18.1 1705(F) (H) 15 36 3 94 16.0 1706 (F) 5 33 8 / (1Y) 95 5.3 1707# (F) 1 8 1 19 5.3 Total 91 17 210 28/ (3Y) 643 14.2 Sources: Parish register database (see footnote 437); Note: * Hammersmith April to November only, #March to May.

455 Registers of Clandestine Marriages and of Baptisms, TNA, RG 7. 456 Only one occurrence per annum of a father’s name is counted although some men had more than one child baptised in a year, and only those men whose residence was in Fulham or Hammersmith are included. There were no entries for ‘market gardener’ until 1826.

124

Table 3.1(B) Male gardening and agricultural occupations in All Saints, Fulham (F) and St Paul, Hammersmith (H) baptismal registers, 1813-1836. Gardener Nursery Market Farmer / All as % Year Gardener Man &/or Labourer gardener Yeoman Baptisms of all Seedsman baptisms 1813 40 1 85 275 14.9 (F&H) 1814 (F) 29 56 145 20.0 1815 49 1 76 257 19.5 (F&H) 1816 (H) 8 36 138 5.8 1817 (H) 16 1 46 168 10.1 1819 (H) 14 48 146 9.6 1820 (H) 20 46 1 162 12.3 1821 (H) 9 57 1 149 6.0 1822 (H) 18 52 3 199 9.0 1823 (H) 19 40 2 173 11.0 1824 (H) 19 36 157 12.1 1825 (H) 13 36 1 154 8.4 1826 (H) 19 1 39 164 12.2 1829 (F) 10 6 69 170 9.4 1830 (F) 12 3 1 82 193 7.8 1831 (F) 7 5 82 200 6.0 1832 (F) 6 6 86 215 5.6 1833 (F) 2 4 76 182 3.3 1834 (F) 3 8 69 208 5.3 1835 (F) 6 5 56 155 7.1 1836(F) 6 3 1 44 117 7.7 Total 325 41 5 1217 8 3727 8.7 Sources: Parish register database (see footnote 437).

125

Figure 3.4 Baptisms where the father was a gardener/ nurseryman /market gardener as a proportion of all baptisms, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1698-1707 & 1813-1836.

Sources: Tables 3.1 (A-B)

The customary term ‘gardener’ predominated in the registers despite evidence in other sources making it clear that additional terms for gardening occupations were in general use. A distinction was not made between commercial and domestic gardeners until ‘market gardener’ occurred in 1826, more than 25 years after it was in general use, and ‘gentleman’s gardener’ in 1830.457 Agricultural, gardening and other labourers were not differentiated until ‘Labouring gardener’ appeared in 1834. As ‘yeoman’, ‘husbandman’, and ‘farmer’ may have included people who were producing some vegetable crops by gardening methods they are also presented in case changes in their usage indicate any trend towards specialisation. There were no

457 Will of Benjamin Rench, 1732, LMA, MS 9172/136C, Will Number 29; Will of William Gray, 1745, LMA, MS 9172/152, Will Number 282; Composite baptisms, marriages and burials, All Saints, Fulham, 1674-1843, LMA, P77/ALL/001-6.

126

dual occupations present and the absence of ‘farmer-gardener’ further removes precision from the entries.

Evidence of specialisation is present in 1813-36 when five entries for nurseryman and seedsman occurred. Following the appearance of ‘market gardener’ the use of ‘gardener’ declined, but the combined number of gardeners and market gardeners also decreased. Reasons for this are not clear. It is possible that there was a small reduction through domestic gardeners being classed as ‘gentleman’s gardener’; there was also a rise in the number of labourers in the nineteenth century, from an average of 26 per annum in the early eighteenth century to 58 per annum in the nineteenth century, and the boundary between ‘gardener’ and ‘labourer’ may have been fluid, but these would not account for all the decrease in gardeners.

‘Gardeners’ accounted for approximately 16 per cent of the workforce in Fulham parish in the early eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is clear from figure 3.4 that in the early period, although the number of ‘gardeners’ was low, they ranged from 12.6-19.0 per cent per annum of all occupations for 1698-1705. For 1813 and 1815, although the population of Fulham had quadrupled in the interim period (see table 1.2) the proportion of ‘gardeners’ in the baptism registers remained similar to the early eighteenth century. However, there were double the number of ‘gardeners’, suggesting that the workforce, had increased significantly. The proportion is an underestimate of the whole industry as garden labourers are missing.458 Interpretation is difficult after 1815 as the data never represents both sides of the parish.

There was a marked decrease in other agricultural occupations. Between 1698 and 1707 there were 28 entries for ‘farmer’ in the baptismal register, but for the 21 years in the nineteenth century there were only 8 entries, all in Hammersmith where farming continued. ‘Husbandman’ did not occur in the baptismal register after 1701.

458 Excludes 1707 part year data.

127

The combined total for ‘husbandman’ and ‘farmer’ averaged 7 per cent of baptisms per annum in 1698-1707 and was negligible in the later period, reflecting the reduction in farmland and the rise in population. As would be expected ‘labourer’ constituted the largest group averaging 32 per cent per annum for 1698-1707 (reaching 42 per cent in 1698) and 33 per cent per annum in the early nineteenth century (highest 42.5 per cent in 1830). Although the proportion for ‘labourer’ is fairly constant, in the later period it might include a decreasing proportion of agricultural or gardening labourers combined with an increasing proportion of labourers employed in construction, transport infrastructure improvements and other industries. The baptism registers indicate that gardeners represented approximately 16 per cent of the workforce in both the early eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, although the actual number of gardeners increased between the two periods, reflecting the increased garden acreage. These findings are tentative, and the poor overlap of registers in the nineteenth century make it difficult to identify trends.

ALL BAPTISM, MARRIAGE AND BURIAL REGISTERS. In an attempt to find any additional indications of the transition to gardening, all entries with occupations, between 1698 and 1707, in the Anglican and Quaker baptisms, marriages and burials registers, and clandestine marriages with Fulham grooms, have been extracted. 459 A total of 931 entries were located of which 420 were for gardening and agricultural occupations and labourers (figure 3.5). Of the total entries ‘labourers’ accounted for 23.3 per cent and ‘gardeners’ 15.3 per cent. Using this method the proportion of ‘labourers’ is below that found in Anglican baptisms alone, while for ‘gardeners’ is approximately the same.

459 These include the occupations of groom, groom’s father and bride’s father from the marriage registers, if they were resident in Fulham parish, and father’s occupation in children’s burials. Only one occurrence of an individual per annum is counted, and the highest status occupation is used.

128

Figure 3.5 Male agricultural and gardening occupations, and labourers, in Fulham and Hammersmith, in all Anglican and Quaker vital registers, and clandestine marriage registers for Fulham parish residents, 1698-1707.

Sources: Parish register database (see footnote 437); HFA, ND/4/14; TNA, RG 7.

This cumulative data can also be analysed on the basis of entries for the 652 individuals who appeared in the registers in the 10 year period (table 3.2). The majority (37.7 per cent) were ‘labourers’, with 14.1 per cent ‘gardeners’ and 7.2 per cent in agriculture. If the results from the Anglican baptisms are compared to these for all individuals in the combined registers the proportions of occupations are of a similar order.

129

Table 3.2 Count of register entries and individuals with occupations in all Fulham and Hammersmith vital registers, 1698-1707.

Gardener Farmer Husbandman Yeoman Labourer

All register entries 142 35 22 4 217 (n=931)

% of all register 15.3 3.8 2.4 0.4 23.3 entries

Individuals 101 25 20 4 212 (n=652)

% of all 15.5 3.8 3.1 0.6 32.5 individuals

Average no. of register 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 entries per individual Sources: Parish register database (see footnote 437); TNA, RG 7; HFA, ND/4/14.

Occupations can be traced chronologically for individuals who appeared more than once in the registers in the early period. No one was described by a dual occupation but entries for 19 individuals showed two or more different occupations. Eight changed from ‘gardener’ to ‘labourer’, while one alternated between ‘labourer’ and ‘gardener’. Five individuals changed between ‘farmer’ and ‘husbandmen’, four between ‘husbandmen’ and ‘labourer’ and one from ‘farmer’ to ‘labourer’. It is surprising there were no changes between ‘husbandman’ and ‘gardener’. For example, in the baptism registers for 1698 and 1700, and in his will in 1711, Thomas Sherecroft was a ‘gardener’ but in the 1704 court rolls he was described as a

130

‘husbandman’ when he took over 5 acres of ‘garden land’.460 This may indicate a blurring of occupational descriptors as a changing emphasis from farming to gardening occurred, the clerk at the manor court taking a different view to the vestry clerk.

Studies of occupations in parish registers have noted that there is a problem with allocating the large number of labourers in the registers to a specific occupational sector.461 For gardening the occupational changes may have been due to clerks variously allocating garden labourers to ‘labourer’ or ‘gardener’. These results suggest there was fluidity in the occupational descriptors applied to low-skilled workers or they may indicate the occupational mobility of someone who initially had limited gardening skills. No one changed between an agricultural occupation and a non-agricultural occupation except to be a labourer suggesting that if there was any by-employment it is not evident in these sources. The transition from agriculture to gardening can be explored through a case study of the Dancer family.

THE DANCER FAMILY The case of the Dancer family highlights the complexity in the application of occupational terms.462 Three generations of the family occupied the same land in Fulham but different terms were used to describe their employment. The title of yeoman was usually confined to those owning freehold land and the Fulham court rolls referred to William Dancer as a yeoman in 1685 after he had inherited freeholds from his father.463 He had also received leasehold land in his yeoman uncle’s will in 1657 which mentioned that in the past the land had been converted to garden and orchard.464 William’s son Nathaniel was a ‘husbandman’ in the baptism register in

460 Will of Thomas Shearcroft, 1711, LMA, MS9172/104 Will Number: 91; C. Feret, Extracts from the court rolls of the manor of Fulham, Vol. 2, 1603-1747 (undated), p. 534, HFA, F352.01 FER. 461 Kitson, ‘The creation of a census’, pp. 28-32. Keibek, Allocating labourers. 462 Also Danncer and Danser. 463 Feret, Extracts from the court rolls, p. 460. Thomas Dancer died in 1670. 464 Will of Nathaniell Danncer, 1657, TNA, PROB 11/267/226. [This is catalogued as Danner].

131

April 1699 but in March 1700 and April 1705 he was a ‘farmer’.465 Nathaniel’s brother Daniel, was a ‘labourer’ in the register for 1700. Daniel died in 1703 and in his will he was described as a ‘husbandman’.466 He left Nathaniel his half share in their father’s leases of land, referring to their father William as a yeoman. William was still alive but it is clear from Daniel’s will that his father had made over his leased land to his two sons as an inter vivos transfer, in return for an annual payment of £15 from them during his lifetime, suggesting William had transferred part of the business jointly to his sons while retaining his freehold land.

Thus three generations of family members, who had all shared land including some garden ground and orchard, had a variety of occupational descriptors, yet no one was termed a gardener. The attribution of yeoman reflecting the status of landowner is usual but the use of the other occupational terms may have been at a time when farming was their dominant occupation and a smaller acreage was gardened. The first mention found of a member of the Dancer family being a ‘gardener’ was in 1718 when Nathaniel appeared in a case in Chancery.467 Why there were differences in occupational descriptors remains open to debate. The Dancer family stayed in the parish with a gardening business for over 150 years and were nurserymen and market gardeners in the 1861 census.468

By tracing individuals over several years the variation in occupational terms attributed to them becomes apparent. One reason for the changes in terms could be the presence of farming-gardening. The number of ‘gardeners’ in the early eighteenth century suggests that some people had started to change from farming to gardening

465 Composite baptisms, marriages and burials, All Saints, Fulham, 1674-1735/6, LMA, P77/ALL/001. 466 Composite baptisms, marriages and burials, All Saints, Fulham, 1674-1735/6, LMA, P77/ALL/001; Will of Daniel Danser, 1703, LMA, MS9172/94, Will number 203. Will of Nathaniell Danncer, 1657, TNA, PROB 11/267/226. The Dancer family were still gardening in Fulham in the nineteenth century when Alexander Dancer, market gardener & nurseryman, baptised children from 1829 to 1836. 467 Dancer and Dancer v. Brooks, 1718, TNA, C 11/2362/7. 468 1861 Census returns, Middlesex, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, RG 9/27-9.

132

earlier than others. Where farming-gardening was still taking place this may have caused difficulties for the clerks to find an appropriate or consistent description when the preference of representatives of parish and manorial institutions into the nineteenth century was to use customary terminology. The distinction between employer and employee in ‘gardener’ is also unclear. The progression of terminology in the Dancer family could show that the crossover from mainly farming to an increasing amount of gardening was taking place during the early eighteenth century for this family. Additional evidence to examine this theory can be found in clandestine marriage registers for 1700 to 1754.

CLANDESTINE MARRIAGES The earliest recorded Fulham gardener to appear in an extant clandestine marriage register was married in 1700. There were 344 marriages of gardeners between 1700 and 1754, 276 from Fulham and 68 from Hammersmith, from a total of 1,028 Fulham parish grooms.469 Once again the only term found for gardening occupations was ‘gardener’. The results are shown in figure 3.6. The number of gardeners marrying rose significantly after 1714 to around 40 in each 5 year period, with a peak of 55 for 1740-44. Between 1700 and 1754 gardeners averaged 33 per cent of all clandestine marriages for Fulham grooms, peaking at 51.5 per cent in 1705-09. The number of gardeners married in each period between 1715 and 1749 remained steady, while the number of grooms with other occupations rose.

A further 84 grooms from Fulham parish gave agricultural occupations, amounting to 8.2 per cent of marriages, of whom 72 were husbandmen. In contrast to the marriage registers of All Saints, Fulham, where ‘husbandman’ last occurred in 1702, the clandestine marriage registers show they were present in the parish up to 1753. Husbandmen were a smaller group of Fulham grooms (12.6 per cent) than those from

469 Registers of Clandestine Marriages and of Baptisms, 1667-1754, TNA, RG 7.

133

Figure 3.6 Clandestine marriages of Fulham grooms, 1700-54.

Source: TNA, RG7.

Hammersmith (30.4 per cent), reflecting the smaller proportion of land used as farmland in Fulham in 1747 (25 per cent) than in Hammersmith (45 per cent).470

The only period when Anglican and clandestine marriages for gardeners can be compared is for 1700-04. Of the 155 marriages of males resident in Fulham in this period, 82.6 per cent chose an Anglican marriage and 17.4 per cent were clandestine. In 17 (11 per cent) marriages the groom was a gardener but their preference tended towards a clandestine marriage, chosen by 58.8 per cent of gardeners, compared to 41.2 per cent for Anglican marriage. The overall incidence of clandestine marriage for Fulham residents between 1700 and 1704 is lower than Boulton’s range of 25-33 per cent for 1700, but is higher for those grooms who were gardeners.471

470 See table 2.2. 471 Boulton, ‘Clandestine marriages’, p. 201.

134

During this period no clandestine grooms from Fulham were labourers. Their absence from the data probably accounts in part for the higher proportion of gardeners found in clandestine marriages than in the parish registers. As Boulton considers that the increase in clandestine marriages reflected the middling sort aspiring to the lifestyle of the nobility, it could be inferred that the preference of Fulham gardeners for a clandestine marriage indicates they were part of Fulham’s middling sort in the early eighteenth century. The first appearance of a gardener in 1700 in the clandestine registers suggests that by this time there were gardeners who were wealthy enough to aspire to this fashionable mode of marriage and their number rose from 1715.

CONCLUSION Gardeners were on average 16 per cent of fathers in Anglican baptism registers in the early eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and this is the first systematic attempt to estimate of the size of the industry in the parish by this method. The high proportion of gardeners in the clandestine marriage data (33 per cent) suggests they were men of the middling sort, probably garden employers. The persistence of husbandmen and farmers in clandestine registers through the first half of the eighteenth century, although a smaller group than the gardeners, confirms the findings from chapter 2 that gardening and agricultural cultivation continued together.

This examination of occupations in the Anglican, Quaker and clandestine registers of baptisms, marriages and burials has been hampered by the poor quality of parish records and the infrequent inclusion of occupations. Nevertheless it is possible to observe that the restricted, customary range of occupational terms was used in the Anglican registers in the early eighteenth century and into the early nineteenth century. Other sources show specialisation was occurring in the industry but it cannot be traced through the registers until occupations were reintroduced in 1813. Interpretation is difficult throughout because of the omission of garden labourers, and after 1815 when the evidence does not represent both sides of the parish.

135

The long delay between gardening emerging from general agriculture and the incorporation of new terminology into the parish registers has hampered the search for new knowledge about specialisation in the industry and any changes in the size of the industry. These limitations reinforce the need to take a microhistorical approach as in the example of the Dancer family. If a similar exercise were completed for more gardeners and over a longer period it may be possible to identify when the crossover from predominantly agricultural cultivation to widespread gardening methods emerged, and provide more evidence about the extent and chronology of the transition.

The popularity of clandestine marriages for gardeners also suggests a rising number were wealthy enough, or came from middling families, from the early- to the mid- eighteenth century to be of the middling sort, and this is discussed further in chapter 5. This analysis indicates that the institutional norms of the church concerning the naming of occupations were slow to adapt to the changes which had already been adopted in wider society, therefore the following two sections consider occupational structure from the perspective of the gardeners themselves.

PART 3, GARDENING OCCUPATIONS IN WILLS

Occupations given by testators resident in Fulham and Hammersmith provide a series spanning the entire period of this study. This longitudinal overview of the terminology used to denote gardening occupations, unhampered by the customary restraints found in parish registers, forms a strong base for the analysis of trends in occupations. However, the population represented by wills is selective: of all the wills from Fulham and Hammersmith testators (not just gardeners) for the period 1680-1861 only four were by labourers, and gardeners’ wills predominantly

136

represent employers, not employees. Whilst accepting that the source privileges wealthier gardeners, wills provide further evidence from which to examine development in the industry and specialisation in gardening. Firstly, a comparison is made between the number of gardeners’ wills and all wills in Fulham and Hammersmith, and this is followed by consideration of the change in occupational terms to assess the extent of specialisation.

A total of 166 wills proved between 1680 and 1858 were found that attributed the testator with a gardening occupation in Fulham or Hammersmith. They were proved in either the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC), for large estates, or the Commissary Court of London and the Consistory Court of London (CCL), the local courts usually used for lower value estates.472 An additional 30 gardeners’ wills were identified by using a microhistorical approach and linking sources, and include ‘widows’ who were gardening, retired gardeners using ‘gentleman’ or ‘esquire’ and several who were ‘farmers’ or ‘yeomen’ but were working some land using gardening methods.473 As these 30 wills were without a gardening occupation specified by the testator they are not used in this analysis. Domestic and commercial gardeners are difficult to differentiate with some individuals having worked as both during their lifetime. The incidence of domestic gardeners leaving wills is unknown, although they probably amount to only a few.474

472 Wills: Prerogative court of Canterbury, 1680-1858, TNA, PROB 11; Commissary court of London, 1680-1820, LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; Consistory court of London, 1809-1834, LMA, DL/C/0441-0508. Additionally, searches of LMA probate records through www.ancestry.co.uk also included the following sources held at the LMA but no Fulham or Hammersmith wills were found: Archdeaconry Court of London, MS 09052 and DL/AL/C; Archdeaconry Court of Middlesex, DL/AM; Peculiar Court of the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s, MS 25628 and CLC/313/K; Archdeaconry Court of Surrey, DW/PA; Commissary Court of the Bishop of Winchester, DW/PC. There are only 4 probate inventories for gardeners for this period. 473 G. Crossick, ‘From gentlemen to the residuum: languages of social description in Victorian Britain’, in P. Corfield, ed., Language, class and history, (Oxford, 1991), p. 165; R. Morris, Men, women and property in England, 1780-1870: a social and economic history of family strategies amongst the Leeds middle class (Cambridge, 2005), p. 80. Other sources were searched for evidence of people having gardening occupations and the names were checked for a will. 474 Domestic gardeners in the census are discussed in part 4.

137

The 166 wills considered here represent only 10.5 per cent of the 1579 skilled gardeners in the gardeners’ names database. Once again an occupational designation of ‘gardener’ predominated, accounting for 79 per cent of wills; a further 15 per cent were ‘market gardener’ dating from 1806; and 6 per cent were for ‘nurseryman’ and/or ‘seedsman’ beginning in 1732. They were most likely to have been employers or part of a family business, rather than employees.

Comparing the number of wills of all males with a gardening occupation in Fulham and Hammersmith with the wills of all male testators in the parish (figure 3.7) gives an indication of the relative proportion of commercial gardening employers in the parish. For this comparison the four women’s wills with gardening occupations are excluded as they underestimate the number of women involved in gardening.475 In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century few wills were left by gardeners but they rose from 7.7 per cent of all men’s wills in the period 1680-89 to 11 per cent by 1740-49 peaking at 16 per cent (19) in 1780-89, the latter approximating to the proportion of gardeners found in vital registers. This suggests that through the late- seventeenth and eighteenth century gardening was expanding in Fulham parish in the number of employers and/or in profitability. After 1789 the number of gardeners remained at a slightly lower level until 1840, but as a proportion of all testators they gradually fell to 4.5 per cent in 1850-58 as the population increased.

The evidence indicates that some specialist gardening was established by the end of the seventeenth century. The low number of wills in this early period can be explained by a number of possibilities: this was a young man’s occupation; there were few gardening businesses or businesses were too small for many gardeners to leave a will; or most gardening was part of a farming business as shown in the example of the Dancer family in part 2.

475 Women generally formed a sizeable proportion of all testators, especially after 1800, although most were described only by their marital status, and their inclusion would have skewed significantly the calculations of the number of garden employers. The number of women in the industry is discussed in part 4.

138

Figure 3.7 Number of wills of all male residents compared to male gardeners’ wills, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Sources: Extracted from: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69- 194.

The wills show only two instances of occupations of farmer and gardener. Edward Bundle was a ‘gardener and cowkeeper’ in 1755 in his will, and Thomas Weekley gave his occupation as ‘gardener and farmer’ in 1822.476 Edward Wells was ‘gardener’ in 1731 in his will but it mentioned both garden ground and one sixth of an acre of meadow land suggesting that he was combining a little farming with gardening.477 Thomas Brassett’s will referred to him as a farmer in 1788, but five

476 Will of Thomas Weekley, 1822, LMA, DL/C/481 Will number 123; Will of Edward Bundle, 1755, TNA, PROB 11/815/351. 477 Will of Edward Wells, 1731, LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/135D Will number 138.

139

years earlier at the Old Bailey he stated he was a gardener.478 In part 1 of this chapter it was shown that some husbandmen in Fulham were gardening from the early seventeenth century, and part 2 indicated there were still husbandmen in the parish in the middle of the eighteenth century, but few yeomen, farmers or husbandmen gave any indication of involvement in gardening in their wills, referring to their cultivation as being ‘arable’ or very occasionally ‘meadow’, if anything at all. As identification of farmer-gardeners in wills is problematic, in order to analyse the changes in occupational descriptors, all wills for yeomen, husbandmen and farmers (72) have been included in figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8 Distribution of occupations given in gardeners’ and agricultural wills for men and women, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194.

478 Will of Thomas Brassett, 1788, LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/176 Will number 312; Old Bailey sessions: Sessions papers, Justices working documents, 1783, LMA, OBPS450270629, www.londonlives, last accessed 21 July 2017.

140

There were more wills with agricultural occupations than gardening until 1724; for 1725-49 the numbers were equal (20) and thereafter gardening predominated, accounting for between 82 and 90 per cent of wills from 1750-1858. There were several interacting trends in gardening and agricultural occupations indicating a combination of both change and stability. Taking agricultural occupations first, ‘husbandman’ in wills ended in 1737 except for the very last one in 1767; ‘farmer’ had a steady, albeit small, presence throughout the entire period; and ‘yeoman’ declined but a few appear in most periods.479 ‘Gardener’ predominated from 1700 until the nineteenth century. Most testators (79 per cent) who indicated their occupation gave ‘gardener’ as their occupation, the number increasing through the eighteenth century and peaking at 37 in 1775-99. ‘Market gardener’ mostly occurred in the final period of 1825-58.

Combining ‘gardener’ and ‘market gardener’ for the last two periods shows that the apparent reduction in gardeners’ wills in the nineteenth century is deceptive, and remained approximately at the same level as 1775-99. As wills containing specialised occupations began in 1732 with ‘nurseryman’ and 1745 with ’seedsman’, it is evident that further specialisation had been in existence from the early eighteenth century but could not be identified through the parish registers.

CONCLUSION The majority of wills still used the customary occupational terms. The text of the early wills with agricultural occupations is too general to make inferences about whether farmers or husbandmen were incorporating some cultivation by gardening methods, or whether gardeners combined intensive gardening with more extensive agriculture, as only two testators gave farming and gardening as their occupation. Wills show that gardening and agricultural occupational terms continued throughout the period. By the early eighteenth century commercial gardening was established

479 The last husbandman’s will was Will of William Perry, 1767, TNA PROB 11/927/127.

141

with a few specialist growers, but the persistence of agricultural occupations suggests that the transition continued during the eighteenth century as shown in the acreage data in chapter 2.480 Taken into consideration with the 1801 Home Office Acreage return, it can be inferred that vegetable growing by more extensive methods, together with other agricultural pursuits, continued alongside gardening.481 The transition to gardening had begun by the late seventeenth century but further information is needed to assess the pace of change. The results for testators’ occupations show concurrence with the changes in land use and further clarity will be sought in the census.

PART 4, THE CENSUS, 1831-61

INTRODUCTION The census has been described as the ‘principal source for reconstructing the occupational structure of Victorian society’, but it has not been used by historians to provide a systematic analysis of nineteenth-century commercial gardening.482 It has the potential to present the most comprehensive view of occupations in gardening for the 1,112 people in the industry in Fulham and Hammersmith in 1851, but this study

480 Age at death is available from 1813, and ranges from 29 to 87, average 63, SD 15.1. But this is not representative of the whole period and is skewed towards older ages at death, therefore 50 has been used as a guide only. 481 See chapter 2, p. 45. 482 E. Higgs, ‘The tabulation of occupations in the nineteenth-century census; with special reference to domestic servants’, in D. Mills and K. Schurer, eds., Local communities in the Victorian census enumeration books (Oxford, 1996), p. 27; J. Matheson, Common ground: horticulture and the cultivation of open space in the East End of London, 1840-1900, unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University (2010), used data on employees and ages from the 1851-71 CEBs but only to elaborate on a few specific garden businesses; R. C. Greener, The rise of the professional gardener in nineteenth-century Devon: A social and economic history, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Exeter (2009), used the published tables on gardeners for all Devon and Cornwall and some CEBs for women in gardening, but conflates employees in domestic and commercial gardens. Neither examine the overall structure of the industry.

142

identifies several problems in the census enumerators’ books (CEBs) that restrict its usefulness.483

In this section historians’ views of the reliability and validity of the occupational data in the census are considered in the context of the gardening industry. The methodology used for establishing the occupational structure of the gardening industry from the manuscript return for 1831 and from CEBs for 1841 to 1861 is given and their usefulness is critiqued. Unusually, the manuscript 1831 census return for Hammersmith has survived, giving more details than the published tables and this is examined. Finally, the information on gardeners and their households extracted for this study from the CEBs is examined in detail. By taking a microhistorical approach the variation in the methods of collection by the enumerators for 1841-61 and the consequent uncertainties in interpretation become evident, within individual census years, when results are compared over several censuses, and between Fulham and Hammersmith. This study gives the first assessment of the size and occupational structure of gardening in the parishes in the mid-nineteenth century.

Criticism has been made of the value of the occupational data in the census by both contemporary organisers of the census and historians. In 1801 confusion over allocating household members to an occupational sector, and to agriculture in particular, led John Rickman, chief census administrator, to observe that ‘the

483 Census returns,1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns,1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, St Peter Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/690/6-7; Census returns, 1851, Middlesex, Hammersmith Brompton, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, Middlesex, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/1470; Census returns, 1851, Middlesex, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule TNA, HO 107/1471; Census returns, 1861, Middlesex, Kensington, St Peter Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, RG 9/23; Census returns, 1861, Middlesex, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, RG 9/24-26; Census returns, 1861, Middlesex, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, RG 9/27-29. www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 21 July 2017.

143

Question regarding Occupations may be said to have produced no result in 1801.’484 Changes continued to be made in the instructions for the collection of occupational data from 1811 to 1861 in an attempt to improve its reliability and validity, but ‘the confusion and imperfections of nomenclature were only partially overcome by 1861’.485 Michael Drake’s comment that a critical approach is required in the study of small areas as ‘the idiosyncrasies of an enumerator might lead to a quite misleading set of returns’ is appropriate to the situation found in Fulham and Hammersmith.486 Taking a microhistorical approach reveals several such idiosyncrasies and these are assessed.

Several aspects of the census data have received attention from scholars. Arguably the greatest problem affecting the occupational data on the gardening workforce is its reliability, which is contingent upon the consistency with which the instructions for recording information were implemented across different enumeration districts (EDs), and the continuity from census to census. In 1831 parish overseers were required to allocate a person’s occupation into one of a small number of pre-defined employment categories, with gardeners and nurserymen specifically included in agriculture. 487 The return separately counted domestic gardeners who were servants but conflated commercial gardeners with farmers.488 From 1841 the occupations given by the householder were entered in the CEB, except for the occupations for farmers’ families working in the business and ‘not apprenticed or receiving wages’.

484 Abstract of the answers and returns made pursuant to an Act, passed in the Fifty-first year of His Majesty King George III. Intituled, ‘An Act for taking an account of the population of Great Britain, and of the increase or diminution thereof’’, 1811, (1812), J. Rickman, Preliminary Observations. Enumeration Abstract, p. x. 485 Census of England and Wales for the year 1861, General report (1863), p. 27. 486 M. Drake, ‘The census, 1801-1891’, in E.A. Wrigley, ed., Nineteenth century society: essays in the use of quantitative methods for the study of social data (Cambridge, 1972), p. 29. 487 Abstract of the answers and returns Made pursuant to an Act, passed in the Eleventh Year of the Reign of His Majesty King George IV, intituled, “An Act for taking an Account of Population of Great Britain, and of the Increase or Diminution thereof. Enumeration Abstract. Vol. 1. (1833), pp. vi-xii. www.histpop.org, last accessed 10 August 2017. 488 Hammersmith census return, 1831, HFA, PAH/1/215.

144

Whether ‘farmers’ included garden businesses, as in 1831, was unclear.489 The extent to which householders understood the instructions, or the enumerators were influenced by their own ideas, is disputed, but evidence of mediation by enumerators in the allocation of occupational terms has been found in this study.490 The census compilers’ assumption of a customary artisanal structure of master, journeyman and apprentice can be found in the instructions.491 David Marsh argues that this system did not occur in gardening, and his findings have predominantly been confirmed in this study.492

Several aspects of the recording of occupations are of particular concern as they affect the reliability of the census when examining occupational change. Historians have highlighted the under-representation of women’s work and the treatment of family members and these aspects are now considered.493

Women’s occupations are under-represented in the census but recent studies think some issues can be overcome.494 Jacob Field and Amy Erickson found that ‘women’s

489 Abstract of the answers and returns made pursuant to acts 3 & 4 Vic. c.99 and 4 Vic. c.7 intituled respectively “An act for taking an account of the population of Great Britain,” and “An act to amend the acts of the last session for taking an account of the population.” Enumeration Abstract. 1841, Part 1, England and Wales and Islands in the British Seas (1843), Preface, p.3. www.histpop.org, last accessed 22 July 2017. 490 Higgs, ‘The tabulation of occupations’, pp. 27, 29; Drake, ‘The census, 1801-1891’, pp. 22, 29; E. Higgs, ‘Women, occupations and work in the nineteenth century censuses’, History Workshop Journal, 23:1 (1987), pp. 62-4. 491 Census of Great Britain, 1841, Occupation Abstract. 1841, Part 1, England and Wales (1843), p. 3. 492 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 363-80. 493 Dual occupations were another issue and these are dealt with separately in part 5. 494 Higgs, ‘Tabulation of occupations’, pp. 31-4; Higgs, ‘Women, occupations and work’, pp. 59-80; E. Higgs, ‘The struggle for the occupational census 1841-1911’, in R. Macleod, ed., Government and expertise: specialists, administrators and professionals, 1860-1919 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 73-88; L. Shaw-Taylor, Diverse experiences: the geography of adult female employment in England and the 1851 census, HPSS research paper 12 (University of Cambridge, undated), http://www.hpss.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/, last accessed 22 July 2017; B. Hill, ‘Women, work and the census: a problem for historians of women’, History Workshop Journal, 35 (1993), p. 82; J. Field and A. Erickson, Prospects and preliminary work on female occupational structure in England from 1500 to the national census, unpublished HPSS Research Paper 18 (University of Cambridge, 2009), pp. 1-5, http://www.hpss.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/, last accessed 22 July 2017.

145

identity was marital rather than occupational’.495 This can be seen in the ‘different interpretations by enumerators’ of instructions, and the irregular recording of women’s occupations.496 For 1841 Shaw-Taylor et al highlight that the instructions required the occupations of married women living with their husbands, and single women living in their father’s household to be omitted.497 In 1851 the instructions required the occupations of women who worked ‘regularly’ to be recorded; this ‘would discourage the reporting of casual, seasonal and domestic industrial employment’ and has led to women working in agriculture being under-reported.498 Scholars have suggested methods for adjusting the data, for example, female field workers in Gloucestershire were estimated by Morgan to account for 23 per cent of day labour, not the 7 per cent shown in the 1871 census, but adjustments have not been made here to the results from the CEBs.499 It was common for women to work with their husbands in farming, undertaking some physically demanding jobs, and Bridget Hill argues that on small acreages their contribution to the success of the business was crucial.500 During the eighteenth century women were involved in business in increasing numbers but the enumeration of married women in garden businesses is a problem.501

495 Ibid. , p. 1, 496 Ibid., pp. 1-2. 497 L. Shaw-Taylor, R. Davies, P. Kitson, G. Newton, M. Satchell, and E.A. Wrigley, The occupational structure of England and Wales c.1817-1881, HPSS research paper 23 (University of Cambridge, 2010), p. 24, Footnote 37, http://www.hpss.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/, last accessed 30 January 2013. 498 Shaw-Taylor, Diverse experiences, pp. 5-6; M Anderson, ‘What can the mid-Victorian censuses tell us about variations in married women’s employment?’, Local Population Studies, 62 (1999), pp. 9-10 . 499 Shaw-Taylor, Diverse experiences, p. 9; D. Morgan, Harvesters and harvesting, 1840-1900 (1982), pp. 89-90, cited in Higgs, ‘Occupational censuses and the agricultural workforce in Victorian England and Wales’, EcHR, 48:4 (1993), p. 706. 500 B. Hill, Women, work and sexual politics in eighteenth century England (Oxford, 1989), pp. 30-2. 501 N. Phillips, Women in business, 1700-1850 (Woodbridge, 2006), p. 1; P. Sharpe, ‘Gender in the economy: female merchants in the British Isles, 1600-1850’, Histoire Sociale, 34:.68 (2001), pp. 284- 5.

146

Problems in the enumeration of members of a family business have been stressed when using the census to consider occupational change.502 E.A. Wrigley explored the accuracy of the enumeration of farmers’ male relatives, co-habiting and working in the family business and found that some were recorded as occupiers of land rather than farm labourers.503 The instruction to omit the occupations of wives, sons or daughters assisting in the family business in 1841 continued somewhat haphazardly into the 1851 and 1861 data collection, despite some sons being adults.504 A small concession was made in the instructions when husbands were dependent on ‘the labour and industry of their wives’ in a family business.505 An example from an earlier period illustrates this. In testimony at the Old Bailey, Mary Thompson, wife of a gardener in Fulham said, ‘My husband is a very infirm man, so lame that he is obliged to sit in his chair for days together; I go to market and sell the goods, all goes through my hands’. Her husband confirmed, ‘My wife is the only person to go to market’.506 In such a situation a wife’s occupation could be included on the census form.

Three widows and two single women in 1861 had taken over family gardening businesses in Fulham and Hammersmith but did not have occupations recorded in the 1851 census to indicate they were participating in the family business. It is not feasible that they had no experience at all before they became garden employers, a point also made by Claire Greener.507 A woman in a family business in Hammersmith is known to have been omitted from the 1851 census. A newspaper article from 1853 reported a gardening partnership between Thomas Deadman, a

502 Higgs, ‘Women, occupations and work’, pp. 60-77 ; E. A. Wrigley, Poverty, progress and population (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 98-105. 503 Wrigley, Poverty, progress and population, pp. 98-105. 504 Census of Great Britain, 1841, Enumeration Abstract, 1841, Part 1, England and Wales (1843), p. 3; Wrigley, Poverty, progress and population, p. 100. 505 Census of Great Britain, 1841, Enumeration Abstract. 1841, Part 1, England and Wales (1843), Preface, p. 3. 506 The proceedings of the Old Bailey, trial of John Thorp, 1753 (t17530111-29), https://www.oldbaileyonline.org, last accessed 22 July 2017. 507 Greener, Devon, p. 113; Martin, ‘Vale of Evesham’, p. 47 found occupations for all family members in Evesham were properly recorded from 1861.

147

‘Gardener employing 10 men’ in the 1851 census, and his sister Emma.508 Emma, then aged 22, was in the same household as Thomas in 1851 but her occupation was given as ‘sister’. Yet their three younger brothers, aged 13 to 17, were ‘gardeners’ living in the same household, and probably working in the family garden.509 Women family members were not recorded as working in their family garden business, the contribution of wives, sisters and daughters, whether full- or part-time, continued to be omitted.

The instructions for completing the census forms probably resulted in the inconsistent and under-recording of women’s occupations in general and in family businesses in particular.510 The conclusions drawn from previous studies are to some extent contingent upon the type of employment examined; nevertheless, the under- recording of women’s work and family members in business, together with the influence of the enumerators require careful consideration to assess their impact on the data for the gardening industry.

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES Three sources are used in this analysis to evaluate the size and structure of the garden industry. The published data at parish level for 1811 to 1831 gives a general overview as gardeners and nurserymen are combined with farmers and this is discussed in chapter 1, page 41.511 The manuscript return for Hammersmith in 1831 can provide a better picture as the names of household heads listed under agriculture have been linked to other documents to identify the number of gardeners and

508 Hammersmith, Charge of robbery, The Era, 19 June 1853, p. 14. 509 Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470. 510 L. Shaw-Taylor et al, The occupational structure of England and Wales, p. 24, Footnote 37; Shaw- Taylor, Diverse experiences. 511 Observations and enumeration abstract, 1811, Abstract of answers and returns under the Population Act, 51 Geo III. 1811, Middlesex, p. 193; Observations, enumeration and parish register abstracts, 1821 Abstract of answers and returns under the Population Act, 1Geo IV C.94, Part 1, Middlesex, p. 191; Enumeration abstract 1831 (Part 1), Abstract of answers and returns under the Population Act II Geo IV C.30, Part 1, Middlesex, pp. 366-7. www.histpop.org, last accessed 23 August 2017.

148

farmers.512 Finally, for the 1841, 1851 and 1861 censuses all the details relating to individuals with gardening and agricultural occupations have been extracted from the CEBs for the three registration districts, Fulham parish, Hammersmith, St Paul, and St Peters, Hammersmith.513 Agricultural occupations were also extracted as it became evident that the distinction between agriculture and gardening was blurred at times. In this study a family business is defined as a market-oriented concern employing family members but may also employ some non-family labour, especially in the summer; the different configurations that constituted family businesses, including connections through finance and landholding, are highlighted.514

Four issues concerning the sources need consideration. These are missing data, differentiating commercial from domestic gardeners, the accommodation of seasonal and day labour, and the inconsistencies found in recording occupations, particularly the conflation of agricultural and gardening labourers. Data from the 1861 census are missing: the CEBs for ED17 in Fulham and EDs 5, 6, and 15 in Hammersmith are incomplete, and all ED2 in Fulham is missing. The data loss cannot be estimated as the rapidly increasing population led to continual boundary changes, making comparison with other years impossible. In the 1851 CEBs 1,112 people with commercial garden occupations have been found in Fulham and Hammersmith, and 736 in 1861, a 33.75 per cent decrease. This is in part due to misallocation of occupations between agriculture and gardening, the decreasing garden land in Hammersmith, missing data, or any in combination, and these are explored below.

512 Hammersmith census return, 1831, HFA, PAH/1/215. A comparable manuscript return has not survived for Fulham. 513 Hammersmith census return, 1831, HFA, PAH/1/215; Census returns, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns,1841, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census returns, 1841, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/690/6-7; Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; 1861 Census returns, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/23; 1861 Census returns, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/24-26; 1861 Census returns, Fulham, TNA, RG 9/27-29. For part of Hammersmith there was a name change in 1851 to Hammersmith Brompton. The CEBs have all been accessed online through www.ancestry.co.uk or www.findmypast.co.uk. 514 L. Shaw-Taylor, ‘Family farms and capitalist farms in mid-nineteenth century England’, AgHR, 53:2 (2005), p. 159.

149

Making a distinction between gardeners in commercial gardening producing goods and food for market and domestic gardeners who tended pleasure or ornamental gardens is an issue. Where gardeners were living as part of a household and enumerated as servants they are classed as domestic and are excluded. If living in a house specifically allocated for a gardener on a large property they are also classed as domestic. Examples in 1841 include James Strachan, resident in the ‘Gardener’s House’ at Ranelagh House, and Francis Bell, in the ‘Gardener’s House’ on the Broomhouse estate; although both were described as ‘gardeners’ in the CEB they are omitted from this study. This leaves an unknown number of domestic gardeners who lived in their own homes. The practice of recording domestic gardeners living with a large household as servants continued in 1851 and 1861 but the introduction of the term ‘gentleman’s gardener’ enabled identification of other domestic gardeners.515 In 1851 there were 64 domestic gardeners in Fulham and 27 in Hammersmith.516 Given the rising urban population it is difficult to know how many there were in 1841.

Ambiguity surrounds the enumeration of gardeners working as day labour.517 Not all workers in the gardens were employed for long periods, or on a regular basis. Employment for some was on a daily basis, other gardeners were itinerant and may not have been in ‘regular’ employment in one garden, in one district, or may have been a general labourer at times. Court records reveal, for instance, that in 1830 a market gardener in Hammersmith said that John Batten ‘had worked for me at different times about two months previous … he had been a labourer’.518 William Morgan, a gardener in Fulham, reported having worked from ‘harvest to Christmas at

515 Census of Great Britain, 1841, Enumeration Abstract. 1841, Part 1, England and Wales (1843), Preface, p. 3; Wrigley, Poverty, progress and population, p. 100, mentions the omission of servant gardeners from the count of agricultural workers in the 1831 census but does not consider the issue of domestic gardeners who were not servants. 516 Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471. 517 Shaw-Taylor, ‘Family farms and capitalist farms’, pp. 174-9, discusses agricultural labour in the 1851 census for Buckinghamshire. 518 Old Bailey, trial of John Batten, 1830 (t18300916-294).

150

Bexley [Kent] last summer’, while another labourer having been ‘out of work in the frost … heard of a garden in Fulham that wanted work’.519 It is not clear how labourers in similar circumstances would have been enumerated. The instructions for the collection of census data in 1841 required ‘Persons temporarily out of employment’ (excluding paupers) not to be counted as employed, potentially reducing the inclusion of itinerant, migrant or day labourers in gardens.520 For 1851 this distinction was not made.521

In the CEBs the uncertain nature of garden work can be seen in the addition of ‘pauper’ to a garden occupation in another hand. For this study pauper gardeners, both men and women, in the workhouse or resident in the parish are omitted. Census day in 1831 was on 30 May, on June 6 in 1841, 31 March in 1851 and 7 April 1861. In a district that employed seasonal workers this nine week range could affect the number present.522 How the intermittent nature of some gardening employment was accommodated in recording occupations is not clear, nor how an enumerator established that a day labourer was unemployed. Youth or old age has not been taken as precluding having an occupation and no one has been excluded from this analysis on the basis of age.

Instructions in the 1841 census indicated that labourers living in makeshift accommodation, classified as ‘sleeping in barns, tents, pits, and in the open air’, were to be omitted yet three ‘garden women’ were recorded as living in a barn at

519 Old Bailey, trial of William Morgan, 1770 (t17700425-24); Old Bailey, trial of John Thorp, 1753 (t17530111-29); Old Bailey, trial of Matthew Hawkins, 1785 (t17850112-68). 520 Abstract of the answers and returns made pursuant to acts 3 & 4 Vic. c.99 and 4 Vic. c.7 intituled respectively "An act for taking an account of the population of Great Britain", and "An act to amend the acts of the last session for taking an Account of the Population". Occupation abstract, 1841. Part I. England and Wales and Islands in the British Seas (1844), Preface, pp. 8- 9. www.histpop.org, last accessed 9 August 2017. 521 Forms and Instructions prepared under the direction of one of Her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State for the use of the persons employed in taking an account of the population of Great Britain, by virtue of the Act of 13 and 14, Victoria, cap. 53 (1851), pp. 6, 36-8. www.histpop.org, last accessed 9 June 2017. 522 Higgs, ‘Occupational census and the agricultural workforce’, p. 702.

151

Paddenswick Close Farm, Hammersmith.523 Living in the open air could be a temporary option for itinerant workers. A gardener who moved to Fulham for work said that ‘he lay under a hedge somewhere, having no money to pay for a bed', although he later found lodgings.524 Householders were not given instructions about lodgers or boarders in 1841 and they may have been missed from the householder’s returns, particularly in overcrowded areas such as Wheatsheaf Alley in Fulham Field.525 Many gardeners and labourers lived in lodgings and they appear clearly in 1851 and 1861.

For this study individuals whose occupations contained only retail aspects of gardening, such as fruiterer or greengrocer, have been omitted; however, if forming part of a dual occupation, such as ‘gardener and greengrocer’, they are counted as gardeners. William Plimley, a ‘market gardener’ in 1851 was famous for raising ornamental plants at the Cape Nursery, Shepherd’s Bush, and on part of his land he raised market garden crops. He also had a shop on his property and delivered greengrocery to local houses.526 Plimley is not especially unusual with this combination of products and occupations. Atherall saw selling locally as an adaptation to compete with cheaper produce transported by train into London.527

523 Census of Great Britain 1841, Occupation abstract, 1841. Part I. England and Wales and Islands in the British Seas (1844), Preface, p. 9. 524 Old Bailey, trial of William Morgan, 1770 (t17700425-24). 525 E. Higgs, Census of England and Wales, 1841, www.histpop.org, last accessed 22 July 2017. 526 Census returns 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; E. Willson, Nurserymen to the world: The nursery gardens of Woking and north-west Surrey and plants introduced by them (Reading, 1989), pp. 86-7. Plimley had previously worked for 14 years as a gardener at Kensington Palace where he was noted for growing grapes and pineapples. 527 P. Atherall, The displacement of market gardening around London by urban growth, 1745-1939, unpublished MLitt dissertation, University of Cambridge, (1976), p. 220.

152

1831 HAMMERSMITH MANUSCRIPT RETURN More detail is available from the 1831 manuscript return for Hammersmith than given in the published tables.528 This handwritten return lists only household heads by name and the answers given to thirteen questions. Householders were allocated to one of six broad occupational categories: agriculture; manufacturing; retail trade and handicraft; merchants, professional and other educated people; labourers; and servants, although only those counted under retail trade and handicraft had their actual occupation noted. The return grouped commercial gardeners with farmers, and their occupations were not differentiated. Similarly, agricultural labourers were grouped with garden labourers without any distinction being made. It is evident that the recording instructions were not clear to the clerk. ‘Gardener’ occurred as an occupation under ‘handicraft’ on pages 1 and 2 of the return, probably in error, and none thereafter. Perhaps the clerk noticed the instruction on the form to include gardeners and nurserymen under agriculture, unless they were ‘Taxable as Male Servants’.529 As in previous census data this usefully distinguishes some domestic gardeners from commercial gardeners, but nominal linking with other sources is required to separate gardeners from farmers.530 Individuals with agricultural occupations were usefully categorised into employers, those running family businesses with only family labour, and agricultural labourers.531

The 1831 return shows 254 men in agriculture of which 88.2 per cent (224) were agricultural labourers, 19 were agricultural employers (7.9 per cent) and 10 in family businesses (3.9 per cent).532 When checked against other sources 15 of the agricultural employers and 5 in family businesses were identified as gardeners, and 2

528 Hammersmith census return, 1831, HFA, PAH/1/215. A handwritten note on the first page indicates the return was summary sheets made by the vestry clerk from the original forms taken by the beadle to each home. 529 Hammersmith census return, 1831, HFA, PAH/1/215. 530 Census return, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census return, 1841, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census return, 1841, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/690/6-7; Gardeners’ database. 531 Hammersmith census return, 1831, HFA, PAH/1/215. 532 This is close to the published figure of 263.

153

were farmers; 7 names were not found giving a potential maximum of 9 farmers compared to 20 garden businesses.533 Eleven of the garden businesses are found in the 1841 census. It is significant that gardeners and nurserymen were counted with other occupiers of land, mainly farmers, and that garden labourers were not separated from agricultural labourers. In subsequent censuses the blurring of boundaries between farmers and gardeners, and especially between agricultural and garden labourers, continued to be a problem in enumerating gardening occupations.

GARDENING OCCUPATIONS: 1841-61 Separate categories for gardeners and nurserymen were introduced in the published statistics from 1841 but only for the whole of the Kensington division, which included Fulham and Hammersmith and five other parishes that all had some commercial gardening, preventing comparison with earlier parish-based results.534 Thus the following discussion is based on gardening occupations extracted for this study from the CEBs for Fulham and Hammersmith for 1841-61.535 Gardening and agricultural occupations from the CEBs for each census are detailed in table 3.3(A- B) and summarised in table 3.4. Employers are taken as those with market gardener, nurseryman, seedsman or florist as an occupation.536 The overall size of the

533 Gardeners’ names database; T. Faulkner, The history and antiquities of the parish of Hammersmith (1839); Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471. The number employed in each business or the number of family members working in the business is not given. 534 Abstract of the answers and returns made pursuant to acts 3 & 4 Vic. c.99 and 4 Vic. c.7 intituled respectively "An act for taking an account of the population of Great Britain", and "An act to amend the acts of the last session for taking an Account of the Population". Occupation abstract, 1841. Part I. England and Wales and Islands in the British Seas, BPP 1844 XXVII (587) 7, Middlesex, p. 117, www.histpop.org, last accessed 30 January 2013; Example of Census Enumerators' Books, 1841, TNA, HO 107/89, www.histpop.org, last accessed 24 October 2012. The parishes in the Kensington division comprised Acton, Ealing, Chiswick, Fulham, Hammersmith, Chelsea, and Kensington. 535 Census returns, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns,1841, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census returns, 1841, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/690/6-7; Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; 1861 Census returns, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/23; 1861 Census returns, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/24-26; 1861 Census returns, Fulham, TNA, RG 9/27-29. 536 This classification of employers is discussed later.

154

Table 3.3 (A): Commercial gardening occupations in Fulham CEBs, 1841-61.

Fulham

1841 1851 1861

Occupational % % % Male Female Male Female Male Female term (total) (total) (total) Florist / 2 0.9 3 0.4 6 1.3 Seedsman Nurseryman 4 1.8 7 0.8 11 2.5

Market 24 2 12.0 36 1 4.6 41 4 9.1 gardener Foreman / 4 0.5 6 1.3 bailiff Gardener 132 60.8 119 14.2 187 41.0 Gardener / Nursery 12 5.5 7 0.7 3 0.7 journeyman Garden / nursery 41 18.9 396 48.6 145 32.3 labourer (M) Garden Woman / 242 29.6 44 9.8 labourer (F) Other garden 5 0.6 5 1 1.3 occupation Total 215 2 (217) 577 243 (820) 404 49 (453) Ag. labourer 263 70 (333) 17 3 (20) 254 31 (285) All other ag. 15 14 4 33 10 occupations

155

Table 3.3 (B): Commercial gardening occupations in Hammersmith CEBs, 1841-61

Hammersmith

1841 1851 1861

Occupational % % % Male Female Male Female Male Female term (total) (total) (total) Florist / 6 1 2.7 6 2.1 9 3.2 Seedsman Nurseryman 4 1.6 5 1.7 6 2.1 Market 8 1 3.5 9 1 3.4 10 1 3.9 gardener Foreman / 2 0.7 1 0.4 bailiff Gardener 162 20 71.4 189 1 65.1 149 2 52.8 Gardener / Nursery 12 4.7 2 0.7 journeyman Garden / nursery 5 10 5.9 19 6.5 56 19.9 labourer (M) Garden Woman / 26 10.2 57 19.5 45 16.0 labourer (F) Other garden 1 0.3 3 1 1.4 occupation* Total 197 58 (255) 233 59 (292) 234 49 (283) Ag. labourer 80 (80) 62 (62) 117 14 (131) All ag. 22 4 43 3 29 5 occupations Sources: Calculated from extracts from Census returns, 1841, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census returns, 1841, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/690/6-7; Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; 1861 Census returns, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/23; 1861 Census returns, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/24-26 Census returns, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; 1861 Census returns, Fulham, TNA, RG 9/27-29 .

156

gardening industry in Fulham and Hammersmith was 472 employers and employees in 1841, 1,112 in 1851, and 736 in 1861. In 1851 the ratio of employers to employees in Fulham was 16.4 employees for every employer, and in Hammersmith was slightly lower at 12.9 employees for every employer.537

Table 3.4 Summary of gardening and agricultural employment, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1841-61, given in table 3.3 (A-B). Foremen, (Total in Gardening gardeners & Garden Agricultural gardening) employers* other non- labourers labourers labourers Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Fulham 1841 (217) 30 2 144 41 263 70 1851 (820) 46 1 135 396 242 17 3 1861 (453) 58 4 201 1 145 44 254 31 Hammersmith 1841 (255) 18 2 174 20 5 36 80 1851 (292) 20 1 194 1 19 57 62 1861 (283) 25 1 153 3 56 45 117 14 Source: Summarised from table 3.3(A-B). Note:* Seedsmen, florists, nurserymen and market gardeners.

Male employees and employers dominated, amounting to 87.3 per cent of the industry in 1841, 72.8 per cent in 1851, and 86.7 per cent in 1861. Employers were a small proportion of people in the industry, 5.8 per cent in Fulham and 7.9 per cent in Hammersmith in 1851, but between 1841 and 1861 they almost doubled in number in Fulham and rose by 30 per cent in Hammersmith. This rise may in part be due to

537 The calculations assume that those with employee occupations in Hammersmith or Fulham also worked on gardens in that parish, which need not be the case, especially around the border between the two parishes, and along the east and west borders with other parishes.

157

the alteration in recording to include co-habiting males working in a family business. ‘Market gardener’ was the principal employer category although they formed a larger proportion of employers in Fulham in 1851 (78.7 per cent) than in Hammersmith (47.6 per cent). In both districts the number of nurserymen, florists and seedsmen rose over the period, probably in response to the increasing urban domestic market for decorative plants.538

Making some allowance for missing 1861 data the overall results for Hammersmith are consistent in showing the size of the industry rising from 255 people in 1841 to 283 in 1861. In Fulham, however, the industry rose from 217 people in 1841, to 820 in 1851, falling back to 453 in 1861, the difference being accounted for mainly by the number of garden labourers. The female gardening workforce in Hammersmith was consistent at around 58 employees each decade, with only one or two being employers in each census. The number of women gardening employees in Fulham varied considerably rising from 0 in 1841, to 242 in 1851, falling to 45 in 1861, with between 1 and 4 employers each decade. The difference in the size of the industry in Fulham between 1841, 1851 and 1861 is too large to be attributed to missing data. The inconsistencies in the structure of the workforce, in the number of labourers, and for men and women workers, require further examination.

Occupational terminology It is argued here that the discrepancies found in the size and structure of the industry in the census are largely attributable to confusion surrounding the naming of occupations. Given the unclear and inconsistent instructions it is prudent to consider how gardening and agricultural occupations were reported in the CEBs for 1841 to 1861, to examine the changing meaning of some occupational terms, and to assess the differences arising.

538 B. Elliot, ‘Commercial horticulture in Victorian London’, in M. Galinou, ed., London’s pride: the glorious history of the capital’s gardeners (1990), pp. 168-77.

158

The CEBs for 1841-61 contained a total of 60 different occupational descriptors for gardeners, the largest range found in any source (Appendix 2). The number of terms increased with each census: there were 13 I n 1841, 37 in 1851, and 42 in 1861, with a greater range in Fulham than in Hammersmith. In 1841 the occupations were collected ‘from the personal communication of each individual’, there were no prescribed lists, but they remained predominantly those that had been used customarily in commercial gardening, supplemented by ‘market gardener’ and ‘garden labourer’.539

A significant difference can be seen in 1851. As well as showing a diversity of language to describe similar occupations they also reflected the increasing specialisation in the industry. For instance, in 1851 the job of driving the garden waggon had become sufficiently distinct to be named separately and suggests a business large enough to warrant a specialised employee.540 Workers in nurseries were distinguished from those in market gardens by addition of the prefix ‘nursery’, and by 1861 specialised work such as ‘seed sorter’ and ‘plant collector’ were mentioned. Clerical and managerial posts emerged including garden foreman, salesman or clerk, probably employed as some businesses became very large, more specialised, acquired more dispersed sites, or the owner became less ‘hands on’. Dual occupations were used occasionally for employers.

These terms all mark an acceptance by the Registrar General’s office of nomenclature already in common usage, but the limited terminology used in 1841 reduces our knowledge of when they were introduced in the industry. For ease of use in this study the occupational terms have been grouped into three categories: gardening employers combines 23 terms found in the censuses; skilled employees, predominantly ‘gardener’, ‘foreman’, and ‘bailiff’ had 24 terms; and unskilled

539 Census of Great Britain 1841, Occupation abstract, 1841. Part I. England and Wales and Islands in the British Seas (1844), Preface, p. 7. 540 Wrigley, Poverty, progress and population, p. 127.

159

employees, mainly labourers, had 13, and these groups will be used in the following analysis. Three ‘gardeners’ in 1851, and three in 1861, returned an acreage and/or a number of employees, and this anomaly is considered later.

There is another anomaly in the results for the Fulham ‘side’ that brings into question the reliability and the validity of comparisons made between the three censuses. At issue is the actual work signified by agricultural labourer or garden labourer. It is incongruous for there to have been 41 garden labourers in Fulham in 1841, then 638 in 1851, decreasing to 189 in 1861, while there were 333 agricultural labourers in 1841, then 20 in 1851, and 285 in 1861. Both terms were present in the CEBs for all three censuses thus a choice was made about which to apply to the work of an individual. The consistency with which agricultural or garden labourer was the preferred term within each census year suggests a common approach by the enumerators, rather than a significant coincidence or consensus between householders, suggesting that the anomalies represent an institutionally preferred nomenclature. It is clear that there was indecision over whether gardening was part of agriculture, particularly in Fulham Field, or an industry in its own right. Whether the choice was made locally or nationally is unknown but further exploration is needed to determine the size of the gardening industry.

It is argued here that many garden labourers were classified as agricultural labourers in 1841 and 1861, and the 1851 census gives the more accurate view of the gardening industry in Fulham and Hammersmith. This can be verified by comparing the number of agricultural employees with the number of farmers returned in each decade. Two farmers and 13 cowkeepers were enumerated in Fulham in 1841, seemingly insufficient employers to support 333 agricultural labourers even allowing for some movement of labour across parish boundaries. In 1851 there were still 2 farmers and 12 cowkeepers but only 20 agricultural labourers were enumerated, and in 1861 there was 1 farmer, 12 cowkeepers and 285 agricultural labourers, indicating a substantial variation in the ratio of agricultural employees to employers. Further

160

evidence is available from the requirement in 1851 and 1861 that ‘occupiers of land’ include their acreage and number of employees.541 For 1851 one of the farmers in Fulham stated he occupied 17 acres and employed 4 labourers (1 worker per 4.25 acres), while the other employed 2 labourers for 50 acres (1 worker per 25 acres).542 These are in line with the range of labourers per acre recorded on farms in Buckinghamshire in 1851.543 The cowkeepers did not return any acreage or employees. The other agricultural occupations in Fulham in 1851 included mainly workers associated with pig fattening or urban cowkeeping, such as milkmaids. Given there were only 2 farmers enumerated in Fulham, the 20 agricultural labourers returned in 1851 are a more appropriate size of workforce than the 333 returned in 1841 and 285 in 1861 for virtually the same number of employers. Aggregating the columns for agricultural and gardening employees in Fulham gives 518 employees in 1841, 793 in 1851 and 676 in 1861. These still show a variation in the overall size of the workforce but the totals are of a similar order. The conclusion drawn is that in 1841 and 1861 most garden labourers were enumerated as agricultural labourers.

Gardening was a much more labour intensive form of cultivation than agriculture. Twelve Fulham garden employers in 1851 made returns of both acreage and employees.544 Figure 3.9 shows a simple linear relationship between the reported gardening acreage and the size of the workforce, producing an average of 1 garden worker per 1.6 acres. This is higher than the average number of workers per acre than given by the two Fulham farmers in 1851 (1 per 11 acres), or the results found by

541 Forms and Instructions prepared under the direction of one of Her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State for the use of the persons employed in taking an account of the population of Great Britain, by virtue of the Act of 13 and 14, Victoria, cap. 53 (1851), p. 38; Census of England and Wales for the year 1861, General report (1863), p. 29. 542 The farmers did not record the names of their labourers so they cannot be crosschecked in the CEBs. 543 Shaw-Taylor, ‘Family farms and capitalist farms’, p. 162. He discusses the under-enumeration of women and boys as farm workers (pp. 177-8) but even this omission cannot explain the large anomaly. 544 Forms and Instructions prepared under the direction of one of Her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State for the use of the persons employed in taking an account of the population of Great Britain, by virtue of the Act of 13 and 14, Victoria, cap. 53 (1851), Preface, p. 38.

161

Sebastian Keibek for general farming of 1 person per 48 acres in Rutland and 1 per 20 acres in Bedfordshire from 1851 census data.545 Nineteen garden businesses reported their number of employees, totalling 458 people, giving an average of 24.1 workers per garden.546 Extrapolating from Shaw-Taylor’s results for Bedfordshire, if this were an average number of agricultural labourers (24.1) they would have been employed on a farm of at least 200 acres.547

Figure 3.9 Garden employees by acreage of garden in Fulham, 1851.

Source: Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471. (n=12).

Further validation of this conclusion is provided by the land use data from the 1843 tithe apportionment schedule for Fulham, where only 11 acres were designated

545 S. Keibek, ‘Allocating labourers to occupational sectors using regression techniques’ (Cambridge working paper, January 2016), p. 4. With thanks to Sebastian Keibek for permission to include this data. 546 Seven businesses reported only employees and not acreage. 547 Shaw-Taylor, ‘Family farms and capitalist farms’, pp. 162-3. See also, L. Shaw Taylor, ‘The rise of agrarian capitalism and the decline of family farming in England’, EcHR, 65:1 (2012), pp. 49-51. No farms in Buckinghamshire had 100 employees.

162

‘market garden ground and arable’ and there was no other arable cultivation. The 164 acres of pasture and osier growing required few labourers compared to the c.1,000 acres of intensely cultivated garden ground. Given the competition for land, if there was any change in the type of agricultural land use after 1843 it would have to have been towards the more intensive gardening, urban cowkeeping in cowsheds, or pig fattening, and these had specific occupational titles.548 As arable farming had a lower rate of return per acre than gardening (see chapter 1, page 21), and there was upward pressure on the rental values of land from the potential for housing development, it was not viable except on the poor soils in the north of the parish.

This evidence supports the argument that in 1841 and 1861 most of the agricultural labourers enumerated in Fulham were working for garden businesses. The use of ‘agricultural labourer’ may lie in the uncertainty caused by labourers working in the open fields, but evidence is unavailable to assess this. The large difference in the number of garden labourers from one decade to the next has only become apparent when the employees from the CEBs are compared over several censuses. This has implications for the reliability of methodologies to establish the size of the gardening industry, based on consideration of only one census, particularly in parishes where there was open-field cultivation.

The interchangeability of ‘garden labourer’ and ‘agricultural labourer’ was not the only problem in allocating occupational descriptors, and mediation by the enumerator may be evident elsewhere. The boundary between ‘gardener’ and ‘market gardener’ was also fluid, and is illustrated by the case of Charles Bagley. The tithe apportionment schedule shows that Bagley owned or leased around 93 acres of market garden land in Sands End, one of the largest garden businesses in Fulham, but in the 1841 census he was described as a ‘gardener’. Subsequently in 1851 he was a ‘market gardener’ with 80 acres employing 64 labourers. His two

548 Dairy(wo)man, dairy labourer, cowman, milkmaid, pig feeder, pig helper.

163

brothers lived in other EDs in Fulham: George was a ‘market gardener’ in 1841 occupying 65 acres of garden ground in the tithe schedule, while William, with 49.5 acres, was also a ‘market gardener’.549

Other employers in the same ED as Charles Bagley were Samuel Broadbent and the partnership of the three Fitch brothers who were all described as ‘gardeners’ in 1841. Broadbent rented 13.5 acres of garden ground in 1843, and in 1851 he was a ‘market gardener’ employing 11 men. The Fitch brothers’ occupied 98 acres of garden ground in 1843 and in 1851 were described as ‘market gardeners’. If they had lived in a different ED in 1841 comparison suggests that they would have been recorded as ‘market gardeners’.550 The question arises of how similar to Bagley, Broadbent and the Fitch brothers were the six other ‘gardeners’ in Sands End in 1841 who do not appear in the tithe data. All but one has been located in Fulham in the 1851 census where they were, a ‘gentleman’s gardener’, a ‘garden labourer’, a ‘nursery labourer’, a ‘farm labourer’ and a ‘labourer’. It is doubtful that any of these men were employers in 1841 and none have been found to have insurance policies for a garden business or to appear in bankruptcy records, suggesting a change in occupation due to financial difficulties.

The evidence points to a diverse range of people in Sands End being called ‘gardeners’ in 1841, both employers and employees. This does not mean that the ‘gardeners’ could not have had their own business, rather that those gardening on the scale of Bagley and the Fitch brothers would have been called ‘market gardeners’ in a different ED. The evidence from Sands End suggests that mediation by the enumerator must be a possibility. The alternative proposition is to accept that the term ‘market gardener’ was used throughout Fulham in 1841 except in Sands End,

549 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham in the county of Middlesex, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Census returns, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471. 550 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham (1843); Census returns, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471.

164

which seems unlikely. The difference in circumstances between Charles Bagley or the Fitches and the younger men who ten years later were labourers must have been obvious. Using the term ‘gardener’ was to opt for the customary name for their occupation. Evidence presented previously for masters and apprentices indicates the importance of the customary role of the ‘gardener’ to the Bagley family and the Fitch brothers. However, other documents give an alternate view: in 1839 Charles Bagley was referred to on his business insurance policy as a ‘market gardener’ as were the Fitch brothers in an 1845 lease, and Samuel Broadbent was a ‘market gardener’ in the parish register in 1835.551

The issue was not confined entirely to Sands End. The fluidity of the boundary between ‘market gardener’ and ‘gardener’ can be seen to a lesser extent in another six EDs where a further seven men who were renting land according to the tithe schedule were classified as ‘gardeners’ in the 1841 census but were ‘market gardeners’ in 1851.552 Other inconsistencies have been found. Two brothers in partnership were both called ‘gardener’ in the censuses but they occupied only half an acre of garden ground plus 88 acres of arable, grassland, osiers, buildings and brickland. Conversely, Sarah Martin was a ‘market gardener’ in Hammersmith in 1841, then was recorded as a ‘gardener’ employing 5 men in the 1851 census, but was a ‘market gardener’ again in 1861.553 Some leakage between similar occupations is to be expected and these examples could indicate occasional mis-allocation, but the absence of ‘market gardener’ in Sands End in 1841 appears to be mediation by the enumerator.

551 Charles Bagley, 1839, Sun fire insurance office, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/566/1304127; Lease, Sampayo to Fitch, 1845, HFA, DD/106/66; Samuel Broadbent, 1835, Baptism register, All Saints, Fulham, 1828-43, LMA, P77/ALL/006, www.ancestry.co.uk, accessed 22 July 2017. 552 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham (1843); Census returns, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471. 553 Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith (1845), LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B; Apportionment for the parish of Fulham (1843); Census returns, 1841, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census returns, 1841, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/690/6-7; Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; 1861 Census returns, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/23; 1861 Census returns, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/24-26.

165

The final element in the use of terminology is the relationship between ‘gardener’ and ‘labourer’. ‘Gardeners’ accounted for 60.8 per cent of those occupied in gardening in Fulham in 1841, this fell to 14.2 per cent in 1851 then rose to 41 per cent in 1861. For Hammersmith there was a steady fall, from 71.4 per cent in 1841, to 65.1 per cent in 1851 and 52.8 per cent in 1861. These variations need to be considered in conjunction with the low number of garden labourers in Hammersmith when compared to Fulham. In 1851 the ratio of gardeners to labourers in Hammersmith was 1:0.4, but in Fulham was 1:5.3. There are a number of possible explanations for the differing levels between the two parishes over the 20 years. It could reflect a differential in the incidence of the remaining customary use of ‘gardener’, or it may represent a difference in skill requirement for the crops grown, with less skilled workers required in Fulham’s open fields, but the reason is not clear.

This analysis of the occupational terms used to describe garden work has shown that they were applied differently within Fulham, between Fulham and Hammersmith, and from census to census. What had appeared initially to be a straightforward exercise of comparing the occupational size and structure of the gardening industry between censuses is fraught with complications when viewed closely, and the missing data in 1861 add to the difficulties in interpretation. The basis for the allocation of occupational terms is not obvious. ‘Gardener’ may have been used predominantly to signify skilled employees or perhaps regularly employed workers. Alternatively it could also signify a small business growing produce for the market using only family labour. Neither is the distinction between ‘market gardener’ and ‘gardener’ entirely clear. In 1851 there were 4 ‘gardeners’ running businesses but they had more land or employees than some market gardeners. The view that the naming of occupations demonstrates mediation by the enumerator, especially in 1841, is a feasible explanation. It reinforces the likelihood that the choice between agricultural labourer and garden labourer was also made by the enumerator, but it

166

does not account for all the variations found here, and firm conclusions require further evidence.

The 1851 census is considered to be the most reliable representation of the size and structure of the gardening industry when evidence from land use data, the employee numbers reported by garden employers in the CEBs, complete data for the EDs, and nominal linking to other documents, is taken into account. It better distinguishes skilled gardeners from unskilled labourers, and garden labourers from agricultural labourers. Therefore the 1851 census is the principal source of data for the following discussions of employers and employees, and the age structure and birthplaces of the workforce. Women’s occupations in gardening have been largely absent from the sources discussed previously but they appear in considerable numbers in the census. As women were an integral part of the commercial gardening industry their experiences are considered within the following discussion.

Employers Historians have noted the under-enumeration of occupations for co-habiting adult family members in a business.554 Martin found for Evesham that ‘most gardening labour … came from within the family’ in 1861, and 40 per cent of gardeners lived in the household of another gardener they were related to.555 As the recording of employer’s households in Fulham and Hammersmith had improved by 1851, the following discussion considers the household composition of employers in 1851 and 1861 to gauge the extent of family businesses.

Table 3.5 summarises the combinations of occupational titles found in households in the CEBs.556 In 1851 there were 41 households with gardening employers as the

554 Wrigley, Poverty, progress and population, pp. 99-100; Higgs, ‘Women, occupations and work’, pp. 59-80; Greener, Devon, pp. 112-13. ‘Employers’ are those with an employer status occupation. 555 Martin, ‘Vale of Evesham’, p. 47. 556 ‘Sole employer households’ are those with an employer as household head but no other gardeners in the household.

167

household head in Fulham and 16 in Hammersmith. In 24.4 per cent of these households in Fulham, and 25 per cent in Hammersmith, there were other people co- habiting who had a gardening occupation, indicating a family business. Thus the majority of businesses at this time were operated using employed labour. However, 34 per cent of employers in Fulham lived in family business households and 42.9 per cent in Hammersmith. For comparison with Evesham, 42 per cent of employer gardeners in 1861, in Fulham and Hammersmith, were co-habiting, a similar level to Martin’s finding of 44 per cent.557

There were four different combinations of co-habiting gardeners who were family members in households headed by a gardening employer: father and son(s); brothers; mother and son; and sisters. None of the business combinations included daughters or wife with a gardening occupation. Households comprised of gardeners who were father and son(s) predominated in both 1851 (85.7 per cent) and 1861 (72.2 per cent). The allocation of terms to the sons tended towards adults having employer titles and minors having employee titles, but this was not entirely consistent. All the sons who were 21 and over were given employer occupational titles except for two who were garden labourers.

557 The effect of the missing data in Fulham and Hammersmith is unknown.

168

Table 3.5 Structure of employer households, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851 and 1861. Fulham Hammersmith 1851 1861 1851 1861 Household composition No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of families individuals families individuals families individuals families individuals Father & son(s) All market gardeners 4 8 6 14 Market gardener & other 2 6 employer occupations All nurseryman/ florist/ 1 2 3 8 1 2 seedsman Market gardener &other 4 11 2 6 1 2 1 3 gardening occupations Brothers All market gardeners 1 2 2 4 All nurserymen 1 2 1 2 Mother & son All market gardeners 1 2 Sisters All market gardeners 1 2 Total in family businesses 10 23 15 36 4 10 3 7 Total with employer titles 16 32 9 5 Sole employer households 31 30 12 21

Sources: Calculated from extracts from Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; 1861 Census returns, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/23; 1861 Census returns, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/24-26; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; 1861 Census returns, Fulham, TNA, RG 9/27-29 .

169

In 1851 employer occupations were reserved predominantly for adult members of gardening family businesses, but with some fluidity in their application. The predominance of households with father and sons gardening suggests this was a phase when sons were being trained before being established in their own business. Where a co-habiting son was older this probably indicates they would be taking over the business from their father at some time. The ‘Sole employer households’ in table 3.5 no doubt include gardeners who were part of a larger gardening family. Further analysis is needed to explore these families through the three censuses, and to earlier family links. This could then provide additional evidence for understanding the processes of succession dealt with in chapter 5.

Despite research showing that women participated in business they remain largely absent from this discussion as they were present in gardening households as wives or sisters but were not given an occupational title unless they were the household head.558 It was accepted practice that on the death of her husband his widow could take over the business. Widows appear in the censuses as garden employers but married women were omitted despite there being evidence to show that gardeners’ wives worked in the businesses.559 Only one wife and husband, Sophia and John Wadson, who were florists in Hammersmith in 1841, have been found where both had gardening occupations. Taken together, the omission of male relatives in family businesses in 1841, the use of ‘gardener’ for some employers in all censuses from 1841 to 1861, and the continued absence of enumeration of most married women or women relatives in family businesses, indicates that businesses were both under- enumerated and misrepresented.

558 Field and Erickson, Prospects and preliminary work , p. 1, 559 Hill, Women, work and sexual politics, p. 246; B. Rough, The operation of a small business in Fulham, London c.1760-1800, unpublished MSt dissertation (University of Cambridge, 2010); A. Erickson, ‘Married women’s occupations in eighteenth-century London’, Continuity and Change, 23:2 (2008); Greener, Devon, p. 113; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 447; Old Bailey, trial of William Pocock, 1810 (t18101031-95).

170

Employees The number of people with garden employee occupations in Fulham in 1851 (773) was considerably greater than in Hammersmith (271) but they comprised a similar proportion of the total number occupied in gardening in each parish (94.3 per cent and 92.1 per cent). This masks a variation in occupational structure between the two parishes. In Fulham the majority of employees were unskilled labourers (82.6 per cent) while in Hammersmith the largest group were ‘gardeners’ (70.1 per cent). The number of women employees in Hammersmith was 58 (21.3 per cent) while in Fulham there were 242 (31.3 per cent). Women were predominantly garden labourers and had been employed in gardening for many years; in 1712 a woman accused of burglary at the Old Bailey was employed in a Fulham garden, and three women strawberry pickers in the gardens gave testimony in July, 1731.560

Table 3.6 shows that in Fulham in 1851 there were 141 households comprising 321 individuals, and 15 households in Hammersmith (36 individuals), with more than one garden employee co-habiting, of which 10 households had people with different surnames. Co-habiting households contained 41.5 per cent of all Fulham employees compared to 13.3 per cent in Hammersmith.

In Fulham most of these households (80.1 per cent) consisted of 2 garden employees, with the remainder containing up to 6 employees. There were a larger number of household types than has been found for employers, and in complete contrast the predominant household type (52.5 per cent) was husband and wife who were both garden employees, rising to 61 per cent for households consisting of husband, wife and children who were garden employees. In most households the husband was a labourer but in 9 households he was a ‘gardener’, possibly suggesting a small family business. There were 28 households comprising father and son(s), but only 5 mothers

560 Old Bailey, trial of Jane Battis, 1712 (t17120910-34); Old Bailey, trial of Martha Busby, 1731 (t17310714-29).

171

Table 3.6: Structure of employee households, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851. Fulham Hammersmith Household No. of % No. of % No. of % No. of % composition households households individuals individuals households households individuals individuals

Father & son (s) 28 19.9 67 20.9 3 20.0 7 19.4 Husband & wife 74 52.5 148 46.1 2 13.3 4 11.1

Husband, wife & 12 8.5 40 12.5 2 13.3 7 19.4 children Husband, wife & 5 3.6 16 5.0 1 6.7 3 8.3 brother / sister Mother & son(s) / daughter / sister 5 3.6 12 3.7 in law Brothers /sister / 5 33.6 12 3.7 4 26.7 9 25.0 cousin Grandfather & 1 0.7 2 0.6 grandson Uncle & nephew 1 0.7 2 0.6 1 6.7 2 5.6 Wife / widow & 1 0.7 2 0.6 1 6.7 2 5.6 Sister [in law] Households incl. different 9 6.4 20 6.2 1 6.7 2 5.6 surnames Total 141 100.0 321 100.0 15 100.0 36 100.0

172

were household heads, principally widows with sons, and all were garden labourers. Where women employees were co-habiting they were mainly sisters, daughters or sisters-in-law. The majority (60.3 per cent) of the co-habiting households were not multi-generational.

In contrast Hammersmith had 15 households with co-habiting employees, much less prevalent than in Fulham in 1851. The proportion of male (58 per cent) to female (41.7 per cent) employees in Hammersmith in co-habiting households, was slightly closer than in Fulham, (65 per cent men and 35 per cent women). There was also a difference in the occupations with ‘gardener’ being dominant, reflecting its overall higher incidence as an occupation in Hammersmith. Eleven ‘gardeners’ were household heads: the remaining 4 households were headed by garden women. Households comprised entirely of women garden labourers were more prevalent than those that were entirely male gardeners or garden labourers.561 The balance in Hammersmith was also in favour (60 per cent) of same generation households.

This analysis of households reveals a paradox. Women gardeners appear in the 1851 census, especially in Fulham, but they were not recorded with an occupation when their husband was running a business, yet husband and wife were both recorded as labourers. In 1851 acknowledging wives working alongside their employer husbands in garden businesses did not occur. Evidence has been presented to show that wives were active in garden businesses. For many the argument cannot be made that they were not working ‘regularly’ in the business but the distinguishing factor for enumerators probably would have been that married women labourers received payment for work while wives (and unmarried daughters) of employers could have been perceived as not receiving payment, but sources need to be found to test this theory for the gardening industry.

561 Women garden labourers were frequently called ‘garden women’.

173

Age structure in gardening The age structure of the male and female workforce in Fulham and Hammersmith is shown in figure 3.10. Men’s ages ranged from 12 to 84. Those who gardened in Hammersmith were an older workforce than in Fulham in 1851; 34.8 per cent of men were aged over 49 compared to 18.4 per cent in Fulham. Women had a similar age range to men of 11 to 77. Again, the older workforce was in Hammersmith where 13.3 per cent of women gardeners were aged over 49 compared to 7.1 per cent in Fulham.

Figure 3.11 compares the ages of men and women for employer occupations, gardeners and garden labourers in 1851, and shows that the overall age structure hides differences between these occupations. ‘Garden labourers’ were the youngest section of the workforce with a median age of 31 in Fulham and 32 in Hammersmith, ‘gardeners’ had median ages of 34 in Fulham and 40 in Hammersmith, and employers were the oldest with a median age of 47 in Fulham and 43 in Hammersmith. The largest group of older individuals were the 38.3 per cent of employers in Fulham aged over 50 but the oldest individuals in the workforce were found among ‘gardeners’, aged up to 81 in Fulham, and 84 in Hammersmith. The few ‘employers’ in the 10-19 age group were predominantly sons in family garden businesses.

174

Figure 3.10 Ages of all men and women in gardening occupations, Fulham and Hammersmith 1851.

Sources: Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1469-70.

175

Figure 3.11: Ages of gardeners, employers and labourers, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851.

Sources: Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1469-70.

176

A comparison between the ages of all male ‘gardeners’ and ‘nurserymen’ in the published figures for England and Wales with all those occupied in gardening in Fulham and Hammersmith in 1851 (figure 3.12), shows the overall distribution is similar. Hammersmith shows an age profile slightly older than England and Wales while Fulham gardeners were younger. In Fulham 53.5 per cent were aged under 40 compared to 48.3 per cent in Hammersmith and 49.1 per cent for England and Wales. In Fulham 26.7 per cent were aged 50 and over and 34.7 per cent in Hammersmith, compared to 31.9 per cent in England and Wales.562 At present no other commentary on age data for the commercial gardening industry is available against which this data can be assessed.

Figure 3.12: Comparison of ages of males occupied in commercial gardening in England and Wales, and Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851. 563

Sources: Census of Great Britain 1851, Population tables II, Ages, civil conditions, occupations and birthplace of the people, Vol. 1, England and Wales Divisions I-VI, 1851, (1854), Table 54, Section 3, In gardens, p. cxxxi; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1469-70.

562 Census of Great Britain, 1851, Population tables, II, England and Wales Divisions I-VI, Table 54, Classified arrangement of the occupations of males and females of Great Britain in 1851, p. cxxxi. 563 The published data for ages refers to ‘Gardeners’ and ‘Nurserymen’ only. There is no occupational category specifically for florists or garden labourers and it is unknown whether they were included in these data. The data for Fulham and Hammersmith excludes garden labourers.

177

Birthplaces Anecdotal evidence has suggested that women seasonal workers came from Shropshire and North Wales to work in the gardens, and that there had been an influx of migrant skilled gardeners from Scotland. 564 Quantitative analysis shows, however, that this was not the case in 1851 when most labourers in Fulham were born in Ireland, while most market gardeners in Fulham had been born in the parish. In figure 3.13 the birthplaces of employers and employees in Fulham and Hammersmith are shown. Ireland predominated as the birthplace for 93.7 per cent of women and 38 per cent of men gardening in Fulham: only one person from Ireland was an employer. The number that were living permanently in Fulham or were seasonal workers is not known, but given the famine in Ireland the likelihood was that few would return at the end of the season.

Almost 30 per cent of male gardeners were born in Fulham and Hammersmith, but hardly any gardeners born in Hammersmith were resident in Fulham or vice versa, particularly for employers. Five per cent of gardeners were born in adjacent parishes and a further 15.2 per cent had been born nearby in Surrey, Middlesex or London. However, almost a quarter of male gardeners had been born in the other parts of England and Wales and this is indicative of the general migration from rural areas into London.565 A majority (52.3 per cent) of employers had been born in Fulham or Hammersmith, while 35.8 per cent came from counties outside London, Middlesex and Surrey. For nurserymen the reverse was true, only 23.1 per cent had been born in Fulham or Hammersmith. There is no evidence of women seasonal workers from Shropshire, there were only 7 male gardeners in 1851 who were born in Shropshire.

564 G. Evans, ‘Farms and market gardens’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), p. 237; T. Faulkner, A historical and topographical account of the history of Fulham (1813), p. 18; J. Middleton, View of the agriculture of Middlesex (1798), pp. 256, 382; Harvey, Early nurserymen (Chichester, 1974), pp. 11-12. 565 J. Boulton, ‘London 1540-1700’, in P. Clark, ed., Cambridge urban history of Britain, Vol. 2, 1540-1840 (3 vols, Cambridge, 2000 ), pp. 316-18; L. Schwarz, ‘London 1700-1840’, in P. Clark, ed., Cambridge urban history of Britain, Vol. 2, 1540-1840 (3 vols, Cambridge, 2000 ), pp. 649-53.

178

Figure 3.13: Birthplaces of employers and employees in commercial gardening, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1851.

Other England & Wales

Ireland

Scotland

Surrey

Middlesex / London

Adjacent parishes

Hammersmith

Fulham

0 5 10 15 20 25 Number Hammersmith Florists / Seedsmen Hammersmith Nurserymen Hammersmith Market gardeners Fulham Florist / Seedsmen Fulham Nurserymen Fulham Market gardeners

Sources: Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1469-70.

179

By the mid-nineteenth century there were 22 gardeners from Scotland, suggesting the anecdotes represent an exaggeration or an earlier phenomenon in the development of gardening.

CONCLUSIONS This discussion has shed new light on our knowledge of the gardening industry in Fulham and Hammersmith. Criticism has been made of the data collection in 1841 and 1861, but from the 1851 census this study presents the most comprehensive evidence of the occupational structure, specialisation, and the actual size of the industry, especially for employed women, found to date.

Comparison of the occupational terms shows increasing specialisation in the industry between 1851 and 1861, but this reflected the adoption in the census of terms that were already used in other sources: everyday language was finally replacing the customary terms. The alternating use of ‘agricultural’ and ‘garden’ labourer from 1841 to 1861 shows there was confusion over the naming of labouring occupations, and some mediation by the enumerator in allocating occupations took place, especially in 1841. It suggests that the place of a gardening sector in the economy was not fully understood until the 1872 agricultural statistics gave the gardening industry a separate category.566 The meaning of the term ‘gardener’ remains ambiguous and was allocated to people with differing characteristics. It is possible that it was used at times for people in small family businesses, but the use of ‘gardener’ in preference to ‘garden labourer’ in Hammersmith remains unexplained and requires further research.

Women were predominantly employed as labourers with only a few, mainly widows, as employers. For 1841 to 1861 the occupations of wives working in businesses run by their husbands were not recognised. An important finding of this study is the

566 L. Bennett, The horticultural industry of Middlesex (University of Reading, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Miscellaneous Studies No. 7, 1952), pp. 15-18.

180

inconsistency in the naming of gardening occupations, and the mediation of enumerators, which become apparent when comparisons are made over several censuses and creates a distorted view of change in the occupational structure. Basing an analysis of the occupational structure on one census could result in an inaccurate picture.

PART 5, DUAL OCCUPATIONS

Historians using probate evidence have found that men with dual occupations (also called by-employment or ancillary occupations) were commonplace in early modern England: Joan Thirsk concluded that half the men in manufacturing in seventeenth- century rural England, who left testamentary records, were by-employed in agriculture.567 Gardeners with dual occupations have been found in a variety of sources and add a layer of complexity to the occupational structure, but may also give a more accurate picture of the actual work of gardeners. Some occupations were related, for instance where both nursery and market garden products were cultivated in a business, or where they were linked with agriculture, such as Thomas Arnold’s occupation described in a case held at the Old Bailey in 1784 as, ‘a gardener and in the farming way’. Others were as diverse as Thomas Swinson’s occupation of ‘gardener and dentist’ in the 1851 census.568 The examples show how dual occupations in gardening can represent different aspects of the industry: describing in greater detail the work undertaken in a garden business; identifying a mixed operation of gardening with another type of agricultural production; or a situation closer to the usual by-employment, connecting gardening with non- agricultural

567 J. Thirsk, ‘Seventeenth-century agriculture and social change’, in J. Thirsk, ed., Rural economy of England: Collected essays (1984), p. 211 cited in S. Keibek and L. Shaw Taylor, ‘Early modern rural by-employments: a re-examination of the probate inventory evidence’, AgHR, 61:2 (2013), p. 244. 568 The proceedings of the Old Bailey, Thomas Chapman, 1784 (t17841208-4); Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469.

181

employment. For this reason the term ‘dual occupations’ is adopted to encompass the variety of meanings underlying the use of more than one occupation and reserving ‘by-employment’ for its more usual association of diverse occupations. After considering briefly the existing secondary literature, the methodology employed and the findings are outlined, followed by a discussion of how dual occupations extend our understanding of gardens and gardeners.

Sebastian Keibek and Leigh Shaw-Taylor define by-employment as individuals ‘significantly augment[ing] the income from their principal occupation by engaging in one or more subsidiary economic activities’.569 The incidence of by-employment found by earlier historians is challenged by Keibek and Shaw-Taylor who consider that probate documents give a higher incidence than would be found in the general population.570 Keibek’s recent research on probate inventories has found an incidence to 20-30 per cent of households occupied in manufacturing having a by- employment in agriculture.571

Several studies have suggested that gardening took place in association with another occupation. Focussing on seedsmen, Marsh found individuals with by-employments of lace-maker, publisher and surveyor in the early eighteenth century. He highlights how it is unclear which was their initial occupation and which became their main occupation.572 For Martin it was evident that in the Vale of Evesham in the eighteenth century gardening was often a by-employment for labourers and lesser trades and craftsmen, including those in the knitting industry, and this lasted into the nineteenth century. This concurs with Joan Thirsk’s view of the interdependence of agricultural and manufacturing employment.573 In the 1841, 1861 and 1881 censuses

569 Keibek and Shaw-Taylor, ‘Early modern rural by-employments’, p. 244. 570 Ibid., pp. 244, 278. Dual occupations is the term applied here but it could equally be multiple occupations as some people have been found in this study to have three occupations at the same time. 571 S. Keibek, ‘By-employments and occupational structure in pre-industrial England’ (Working paper, Cambridge, 2016), p. 1. Grateful thanks to Sebastian Keibek for permission to include this. 572 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 389-90. 573 Keibek, ‘By-employments’, p. 1.

182

he found 28 per cent of the 139 market gardeners also had another occupation, including shopkeeper and brewer.574 Using trade directories and CEBs Clare Greener located 25 market gardeners in Devon between 1850 and 1901 who had dual occupations, either by adding gardening to their existing stock-keeping or arable farming, or combining gardening with work in other sectors such as retail, innkeeping, brewing or as carriers.575 From statistics presented in her study it has been possible to estimate an incidence of 3.4 per cent in 1851 and 1.4 per cent in 1881, for dual occupations, figures that are much lower than Martin found.

Instructions were given in the census for dealing with dual occupations. For 1831 the occupation from which the individual would profit most should be recorded.576 The treatment of ‘double occupations’ was called ‘a source of difficulty’ in 1861. Nevertheless the instruction for recording in the order of importance remained, and from 1831 importance was equated with producing most profit.577

Five sources have provided evidence of commercial gardening being combined with one or more occupations in Fulham and Hammersmith: the 1851 and 1861 censuses; Sun Insurance Office fire insurance policies; bankruptcy and insolvency notices in

574 Martin, ‘Vale of Evesham’, pp. 47-8. Householders were instructed that if they followed ‘more than one distinct trade’ they were to write them ‘in order of their importance’. Forms and instructions prepared under the instructions of one of Her Majesty’s principal secretaries of state for the use of the persons employed in taking an account of the population of Great Britain, By virtue of the Act of 13 and 14 Victoria, cap 53. Householder’s schedule (1851), p.6. www.histpop.org, last accessed 26 August 2017. 575 Greener, Devon, pp. 196-8. 576 Enumeration abstract 1831 (Part 1), Abstract of answers and returns under the Population Act II Geo IV C.30, Part 1, Middlesex, Preface, p. vi.. www.histpop.org, last accessed 2 August 2016. 577 Census of England and Wales for the year 1861, General report (1863), p. 30.

183

the London Gazette; Old Bailey testimony; and wills.578 The Old Bailey testimony and the censuses could include all types of gardeners, but wills, the London Gazette and insurance policies refer only to garden business owners.

Between 1735 and 1858, 62 dual occupations have been found, shown in table 3.7, with most occurring in the 1861 census and London Gazette. Only one woman, a bankrupt market gardener, dealer and chapwoman, was identified as having more than one occupation.579 The overall incidence rate was 2.9 per cent, a low rate when compared with Martin’s findings and more in line with Greener’s findings. It ranged, however, from 25.9 per cent in the London Gazette to 0.9 per cent in the 1851 census. In the 1851 census all the distinct occupations of an individual should have been written in the order of their importance, but the incidence is depressed by the inclusion of labourers in the denominator.580 Few (7) dual occupations were found before 1780; for example, in their wills, William Gray in 1745 was described as a nurseryman and seedsman and John Wells was a gardener and brewer in 1759.581

578 Census returns, 1851, Hammersmith Brompton, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; 1861 Census returns, St Peter Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/23; 1861 Census returns, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/24-26; 1861 Census returns, Fulham, TNA, RG 9/27-29; The London Gazette, https://www.thegazette.co.uk/; Prerogative court of Canterbury, TNA, PROB 11; Commissary court of London, LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; Consistory court of London, 1670-1853, LMA, DL/C/0422-0508; Sun fire office policies, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936; The proceedings of the Old Bailey. For the London Gazette and the insurance policies, individuals are only counted once irrespective of how many policies or notices concerned them. 579 Sarah Champness, London Gazette, Issue 17530 (30 October 1819), p. 1928. 580 Forms and Instructions prepared under the direction of one of Her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State for the use of the persons employed in taking an account of the population of Great Britain, by virtue of the Act of 13 and 14, Victoria, cap. 53 (1851), p. 38. www.histpop.org, last accessed 11 August 2017; Census of England and Wales for the year 1861, General report (1863), p. 30. 581 Will of William Gray, 1745, LMA, MS 9172/152 Will number 282. Last accessed 18/9/2013; Will of John Wells, 1759, LMA, MS 9172/163 Will number 253, last accessed 14/9/2013.

184

Table 3.7 Incidence of gardeners with dual occupations, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1700-1861.

Incidence of dual No. with Total Time occupations dual records period Source (%) occupations available582 covered Bankruptcy notices 25.9 14 54 1723-1855 Insurance policies 22.0 9 41 1777-1839 Old Bailey testimony 10.7 3 28 1712-1830 Wills 5.6 11 196 1700-1858 1851 census 0.9 10 1,112 1851 1861 census 2.0 15 736 1861 All sources 2.9 62 2,167 1712-1858 Sources: See Footnote 578.

Combinations of gardening occupations accounted for almost half (45.8 per cent) the dual occupations (table 3.8). A further 28.8 per cent were gardening and an agricultural occupation, mainly farmer but also drover and cowkeeper; 10.2 per cent included dealer; and 15.3 per cent were in other sectors.583 Some combinations were less predictable and included school teacher, dentist and laundryman. These are similar to the findings of Martin and Greener, but only Martin’s finding of gardening with knitting was an agricultural by-employment with manufacturing.

Individuals identified by several gardening skills made up the largest proportion (33.9 per cent) and occurred mainly in the census, utilising terms that signified

582 The total number of documents in the source available for all gardeners in Fulham and Hammersmith during the time period given. 583 Prior to 1842, the date from which gardeners could become bankrupt, the addition of ‘dealer’ to a gardening occupation may at times have been a legal fiction in order to qualify for bankruptcy and avoid imprisonment, and is discussed in chapter 5, part 2.

185

Table 3.8 Summary of gardeners’ dual occupations, Fulham & Hammersmith, 1700-1861.584

Occupational description Number Per cent of total Gardener / market gardener &: farmer 14 23.7 dairying or drover 5 8.5 dealer / chap[wo]man 5 8.5

victualler or brewer 4 6.8

fruiterer 4 6.8 florist 5 8.5 greengrocer 3 5.1 nurseryman 3 5.1

Gardener / nurseryman & seedsman 8 13.6

Nurseryman & florist 3 5.1 Seedsman & florist 1 1.7 Gardening and any other occupation 4 6.8

Sources: See footnote 578. specialisation in commercial gardening, and are probably reflecting the specialisation that had existed for many years. To these can be added seven (11.9 per cent) who combined gardening with retailing as a fruiterer or greengrocer, also predominantly in the census, probably another long-standing activity. Three connections to agriculture between 1837 and 1851 were with urban milk production, a diversification into another type of urban agricultural specialism, making a total of 32.2 per cent who were occupied in other agricultural pursuits. The dual occupations

584 As three gardeners appeared in two different sources with the same dual occupations they have not been double counted, thus n= 62 in table 3.7 and n=59 in table 3.8.

186

with agriculture occurred earlier, 10 being prior to 1800, and may indicate the transition to gardening. These entries were concentrated in insurance policies.585 Perhaps the clarity in insurance policies about occupations and business operations was a requirement of the insurer to identify the risk underwritten. Property insured against fire included farm buildings: Robert Bagley’s policy mentioned a cowhouse and John Millett’s a rickyard, while several others listed a barn.586 Thus occupations that are closest to representing a by-employment account for 22 per cent.

CONCLUSION The results raise several questions about what constituted a dual occupation. Recording occupations appears to have been haphazard and dependent on the purpose of the document therefore several sources have been searched for clarification. The land use in the Fulham and Hammersmith tithe apportionment schedules shows that 26 people with gardening occupations who occupied market garden land also had parcels of land with other agricultural uses.587 For example, William Wells had 20 acres of market garden land and 46 acres of arable and osiers. He was a gardener in the 1841 census, a farmer in 1851 and a ‘market gardener and farmer’ in 1861, suggesting that it was not until 1861 that an accurate description of his occupation was given.588 Charles Bagley grew 7 acres of animal fodder, and later was breeding pigs, but he was only ever described as a gardener or market gardener.589

585 Jackson’s study of 500 insurance policies in Warrington for 1720-1800 questions the accuracy of occupations in policies but his criticisms do not apply to this sub-set of gardeners’ policies in Fulham. T. Jackson, ‘Personal wealth in late eighteenth-century Warrington’, 44:2, EcHR (1991), p. 321. 586 Robert Bagley, 1798, Sun fire office policy, LMA CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/ 413/ 682528; John Millett, 1794, Sun fire office policy, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/399/634663. Further discussion of the structure of garden businesses continues in chapter 5. 587 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B. 588 Census returns,1841, Middlesex, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census returns, 1851, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/1470; 1861 Census returns, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, RG 9/24-26. 589 ‘Agricultural queries’, The British Farmer’s Magazine, 23:45 (1853), pp. 560-1; ‘Auction’, Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, 31 (1872), p. 1269.

187

The clarification of gardening roles under-represented some aspects. Alexander Dancer was a ‘nurseryman and market gardener’ in the 1851 census and this is confirmed in the index to Maclure’s 1853 map of Fulham land use where he occupied ‘nursery ground and market garden ground’. The map index also mentions a shop on the premises but the retailing aspect of his business was omitted from the census. There were another three businessmen in the index to Maclure’s map who had market gardens or nurseries with shops for whom no other evidence of retailing as an occupation has been found.590 A few gardeners were exploiting some of their land for housebuilding or brickmaking, and these did not appear as a dual occupation. ‘Proprietor of houses’ was a common occupation in urban Fulham and Hammersmith but these were not mentioned until a gardener retired, perhaps when they became the sole, or largest, source of income. The issue of why some occupations were mentioned, and not others, is open to debate. Probably only the one providing most income was given or, as Higgs suggests, that in response to being asked what they were called, not what they did, householders provided the occupation with the highest status, whereas the legal requirements in bankruptcy notices produced a comprehensive picture.591

Most of the dual occupations that have been located comprised two gardening occupations or gardening with farming. Although only 59 dual occupations are examined here, the detailed analysis for these individuals reveals new knowledge about the composition of gardening businesses. Whether a combination of commercial gardening roles requiring different skills should be considered as an additional ‘occupation’ is open to discussion. What appear to be additional occupations could be increasingly specific descriptions using new terminology, indicating developments in the industry. Other dual occupations could be evidence of a period of transition in agriculture especially recognition of farming-gardening

590 Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; J. Maclure, Index to Maclure's survey of the parish of Fulham, 1853, HFA F336.27 MAC. 591 E. Higgs, ‘Occupational censuses and the agricultural workforce in Victorian England and Wales’, EcHR, 48:4 (1995), p. 704.

188

occupations, or businessmen adapting production to market requirements. It shows that incident rates for dual occupations are dependent upon the source and, once again, that results based on one source may not show a complete picture. Only by using a variety of sources and linked documents has it been possible to reveal a more accurate picture of how gardeners earned their living, and this aspect of gardening is discussed further in chapter 5.

CHAPTER 3: GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The discussion in this chapter has used new evidence to increase our understanding of the occupations in the gardening industry and the picture that is emerging is more multi-faceted than the customary occupational terms would suggest. A restricted range of customary occupational descriptors was found in the institutional sources, apprenticeships, parish and clandestine registers, in the 1841 census, and unexpectedly in wills. Commercial documents such as fire insurance policies, and the 1851 and 1861 censuses had a wider range of terminology and provide a fuller picture of gardeners and garden businesses. Nevertheless these terms were inadequate to represent the different roles undertaken by an individual employed in gardening and present a limited view of the structure of the industry.

From these sources a general pattern of development begins to emerge. The transition to gardening began before 1680 but evidence shows that it continued during the eighteenth century, land was still being converted to gardens in the early nineteenth century, and some businesses continued to combine farming and gardening into the nineteenth century. The workforce was also increasing during this period, probably peaking in the second quarter of the nineteenth century.592 The death knell for the industry was evident in 1872 when Charles Bagley’s land in Fulham was sold for development.593

592 Chapter 4, page 228, gives details of gardeners building houses on their garden land by the 1850s. 593 C. Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol. 3 (3 vols, 1900), p. 282.

189

Close analysis using record linkage has revealed areas of inconsistency, and mediation by the enumerators, in the recording of occupations in the census, especially between the attribution of ‘agricultural labourer’ and ‘garden labourer’, and ‘market gardener’ or ‘gardener’, resulting in under-enumeration of gardeners in 1841 and 1861. The overall occupational structure can be characterised as a pyramid reflecting the level of skill, security of employment, ownership, and possibly capital investment. In 1851 at the base of the pyramid were labourers accounting for 66 per cent, then skilled gardeners and foremen were 27 per cent, and the top 6 per cent were the employers, nurserymen, seedsmen, florists, and market gardeners.

The terms used in 1841 were inadequate to represent the variety of roles required to describe fully employment in gardening, but the range improved in 1851 and 1861 in order to better reflect developments that had appeared earlier in commercial sources. The fluidity of boundaries between occupational terms could indicate occupational mobility or more subtle differentiation that has not been uncovered. Similarly, perhaps as a result of longstanding ideas of agricultural production, or in recognition of the complexity of businesses shown through dual occupations, there is blurring between nurserymen, market gardeners, farmer-gardeners and farmers. The problems shown to exist in the application of terminology in the 1841 and 1861 censuses, and the missing data for 1861, have undermined their value for assessing the trend in the size of the industry over 20 years and the figure of a 30 per cent growth can only be an estimate. The implication is also that only the 1851 census gives an accurate picture of the number of women employed.

190

CHAPTER 4

THE ROLE OF LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND TENURE IN GARDEN BUSINESSES.

INTRODUCTION In addressing the question, ‘What was a gardener?’ chapter 3 has given a more detailed view of the occupational structure of the industry than previous studies. The remaining chapters consider the related question, ‘What was a garden business?’ Contemporary sources and modern scholarship frame commercial gardens in a variety of ways. During a chancery court case a gardener deposed that ‘in 1787 … the Compl[ainan]ts … did commence a partnership in the Trade or Business of Gardening at Fulham’, while in the 1851 census Walter Parry, who ran a business in south Fulham, described himself as a ‘Market gardener farming 5 acres’.594 David Marsh argues that seventeenth-century commercial gardens around London were small scale businesses, often with a mixture of arable farming, keeping a few livestock, raising vegetables and growing fruit or flowers for sale, with specialisation beginning in the eighteenth century.595 Mixed horticultural production was still in evidence in the 1860s when Joseph Turrill’s diary included 12 types of fruit, 21 varieties of vegetables, and 20 kinds of flowers that he grew on his market garden in Garsington for the Oxford market.596

Landholding is fundamental to agricultural history but scholars have rarely viewed gardening through the lens of debates in agriculture or included gardening in discussions of agricultural change. Commercialisation, specialisation, modernisation of tenure, and landownership have received varying degrees of attention in garden history, but the focus has been on the early modern period, or the evidence has been

594 John Rough, Unpublished depositions, 1786-97, TNA, C 24/2452; Census returns, 1851, Middlesex, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/1471. 595 D. Marsh, The gardens and gardeners of later Stuart London, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (2004), pp. 380-2. 596 R. C. Greener, The rise of the professional gardener in nineteenth-century Devon: A social and economic history, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Exeter (2009), p. 203.

191

fragmentary. Previous studies have indicated that few gardeners owned their own land but little consideration has been given to the significance of this finding in terms of the consequences of renting garden land for a business.597 The exception is Peter Atherall’s study of the effect of urban growth on gardens across London after 1745, based on sale catalogues and leases.598 He concluded that ‘agricultural users … had greater resistance to urban growth’ than previously thought, especially those with intense and efficient cultivation, and the ‘normative rent maximising approach’ to change need not apply.599

Land was the basic requirement for a garden business. The findings in chapter 2 are developed here by taking a closer view of land use in the businesses in Fulham and Hammersmith through consideration of the role of landlords, tenants, tenure and land use in commercial gardens. Exploring change over 180 years reveals the diversity of garden businesses in terms of their size, the composition of tenure, and form of land use. The chapter begins with a brief review of the pertinent literature in agricultural history, identification of gaps in knowledge and the research questions to be answered, followed by an outline of the methodology and sources used. Detailed evidence from gardening families is woven into these discussions and case studies are used to examine themes from the perspective of an individual or family.

The findings show that most gardeners rented land at economic rents from a variety of landlords, some landlords profiting from sub-letting land that they themselves

597 J. Martin, ‘The social and economic origins of the Vale of Evesham market gardening industry’, AgHR, 33:1 (1985), 41-50; M. Thick, The Neat House gardens: early market gardening around London (Totnes, 1998); idem, ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’, in J. Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales, Vol. 5, 1640-1750: II Agrarian change (Cambridge, 1985), 503-32; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners; B. Swann, A study of some London estates in the eighteenth century, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (1964), p. 138 and ch. 5; K. Bailey, The metamorphosis of Battersea, 1800-1914: a building history, unpublished PhD, The Open University (1995); M. Brown, The market gardens of Barnes and Mortlake (1985); P. Atherall, The displacement of market gardening around London by urban growth, 1745-1939, unpublished MLitt dissertation, University of Cambridge, (1976), which considered 29 leases from Fulham and Hammersmith, and also the Hammersmith valuation books. 598 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening. See also chapter 2. 599 Ibid., ‘Introduction’, unpaginated (c. p. iii).

192

leased at low rents from the bishop of London.600 Yet while gardens were often family businesses employing varying amounts of labour, few gardeners were owner- occupiers of the land they worked. Marsh’s view that farming-gardening was a transitional phase from the mid-seventeenth century to the mid-eighteenth century is not supported by the findings here: garden businesses could take a variety of forms, including farming and gardening, well into the nineteenth century.601 The land-use composition of their businesses found in this study is more complex than has been suggested previously, but supports Marsh’s view that gardeners were adaptable and astute businessmen and women.602

HISTORIOGRAPHY Historians have identified two contrasting trends in general agricultural landholding. One was the emergence of large estates owned by the nobility or gentry. This concentration of ownership took place alongside a contrary trend of smaller purchases of land, by the lesser gentry, professionals or merchants, for its rental income and arguably as a means to achieving a higher social status.603 Around London purchases of land were also attractive for their future potential as building land or the extraction of brickearth.604 Paul Carter found there were no dominant landholders in Middlesex, a different pattern to that found in other counties, although

600 An economic rent is an open-market rent, without any subsidy. 601 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 380-1. 602 Ibid., pp. 381-2. 603 J. Beckett, ‘The pattern of landownership in England and Wales, 1660-1800’, EcHR, 37:1 (1984), 1-22; C. Clay, ‘Landlords and estate management in England: The evolution of landed society after the Restoration’, in J. Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales, Vol. 5, 1640-1750, II Agrarian change (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 162, 164, 175, 182-3; A. Offer, ‘Farm tenure and land values in England, c. 1750-1950’, EcHR, 44:1 (1991), pp. 2-3; M. Turner, J. Beckett and B. Afton, Agricultural rents in England, 1690-1914 (Cambridge, 1997), p. 218; R. Allen, 'The price of freehold land and the interest rate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries', EcHR, 41:1 (1988), p. 1; idem, ‘Agriculture during the industrial revolution, 1700-1850’, in R. Floud and P. Johnson, eds.,Cambridge economic history of modern Britain, Vol.1, Industrialisation 1700-1860 (3 vols., Cambridge, 2004), pp. 98-100. 604 Clay, ‘Landlords and estate management’, pp. 191-3; Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. 6, 19, 33.

193

they may have had additional holdings in other counties.605 The extent to which these trends can be observed in landholdings in garden businesses in Fulham and Hammersmith is examined in this chapter.

Modernisation of tenure and the introduction of economic or rack rents on farms have also been the subjects of discussion, particularly the timing of their introduction. Jane Whittle’s findings for sixteenth-century Norfolk showed that landlords retained customary tenancies and leaseholds, and Turner, Beckett and Afton show that beneficial leases and other customary types of tenure continued into the nineteenth century.606 Various dates have been identified when rack rents and tenancies-at-will began to predominate. While Ormrod suggests that economic rents emerged during the eighteenth century, Turner et al found their use began as early as the 1690s, and a variation in opinion remains.607 Robert Allen cites higher rents as the motive for large farms, although Gregory Clark showed that proportionately higher rents were achieved on very small agricultural acreages, but he does not offer a reason for this.608 The high rents achieved from the small but highly productive, intensively cultivated garden acreages have not formed part of the discussion.609

A distinction has been drawn between the modernising practices of private landlords and the persistent use of traditional tenure by institutional landlords. Christopher Clay examined 26 diocesan estates after the Restoration to assess the view of E.P. Thompson that between 1715 and 1760 church estates exploited their tenants. He

605 P. Carter, Enclosure resistance in Middlesex, 1656-1889: A study of common right assertion, unpublished DPhil dissertation, Middlesex University (1998), pp. 14-5, 62-3; J. Middleton, View of the agriculture of Middlesex (1798), pp. 34-5. 606 J. Whittle, The development of agrarian capitalism: land and labour in Norfolk, 1440-1580 (Oxford, 2000), pp. 308-9; Turner, Beckett and Afton, Agricultural rents, pp. 24-32. 607 D. Ormrod, ‘Agrarian capitalism and merchant capitalism: Tawney, Dobb, Brenner and beyond’, in J. Whittle, ed., Landlords and tenants in Britain, 1440-1660: Tawney’s agrarian problem revisited (2013), pp. 211-13; Turner, Beckett and Afton, Agricultural rents, pp. 26-32. 608 Allen, ‘Agriculture during the industrial revolution’, p. 110; G. Clark, ‘Commons sense: Common property rights, efficiency and institutional change’, Journal of Economic History, 58:1(1998), pp. 87- 8. 609 Thick, ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’, pp. 519-21.

194

found that, while this may have been their intention, the institutional management was so poor that ‘the effect of their greed was the very opposite of oppression for their tenants’.610 Very little ecclesiastical land had a rack rent, church leases on agricultural land were usually beneficial leases for three lives or 21 years.611 However, the leaseholders frequently sub-let these properties at an economic rent.612 As the bishop of London was a large landowner in Fulham and Hammersmith his managerial approach may have affected the operation of commercial gardens.

These trends in landownership have been seen as promoting the end of both owner- occupation and the yeomanry, while creating a monopoly of power in the hands of a few ‘territorial aristocrats’.613 The timing of this change is also the subject of debate and it has been suggested by J. Cooper that it was a ‘complex process of change within and between [social] groups’.614 There were also regional variations: studies of Leicestershire, Buckinghamshire and Warwickshire found that the yeomanry survived to the end of the eighteenth century, only declining in the early nineteenth, but the timing was also dependent on the type of agriculture, with corn growing areas more susceptible to early decline, less so in pastoral areas.615

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES Four principal sources are used to examine landholding, landlords and tenants in Fulham and Hammersmith: the bishop of London’s estate records covering 1698 to

610 C. Clay, ‘ “The greed of Whig Bishops?”: Church landlords and their lessees 1660-1760’, Past and Present, 87 (1980), pp. 128-57. 611 Ibid., pp. 128-32; Martin, ‘Vale of Evesham’, p. 46. 612 Clay, ‘The greed of Whig Bishops’, p. 130; Martin, ‘Vale of Evesham’, p. 46. 613 J. Beckett, ‘The decline of the small landowner in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England: Some regional considerations’, AgHR, 30: 2 (1982), pp. 110-11; Clay, ‘Landlords and estate management’, pp. 162-98; Allen, ‘Agriculture during the industrial revolution’, pp. 96-116; P. Lindert, ‘Who owned Victorian England? The debate over landed wealth and inequality’, Agricultural History, 61:4 (1987), p. 29; S. Elliott, ‘The open-field system of an urban community; Stamford in the nineteenth century’, AgHR, 20:2 (1972), pp. 159-60; T. Williamson and B. Bellamy, Property and landscape: a social history of land ownership and the English countryside (1987), p. 100. 614 J. Cooper, ‘The social distribution of land and men in England, 1436-1700’, EcHR, 20:3 (1967), pp. 419-35. 615 Beckett, ‘The decline of the small landowner’, pp. 98-111.

195

1854; the Fulham and Hammersmith tithe apportionment schedules for 1843/5; original leases for garden ground from 1702 to 1845; and wills.616 These have been linked to a variety of other primary sources, including the Hammersmith parish valuations for 1793 and 1845, and the index to Maclure’s 1853 map of Fulham land use.617

Administrative documents for the bishop’s estate in Fulham parish mention 83 tenants and summaries of 101 property leases for 1698-1825.618 The sequence of information is incomplete as the comprehensiveness of records varied over the period and it is difficult to distinguish garden land from arable. Records may include the occupation of the tenant, details of land use, rents and fines, a recital of previous occupants of the property and other comments. Unfortunately the property’s acreage is given infrequently as is reference to copyhold garden land. More detailed information is found in the 22 surveys and valuations of diocesan properties made between 1809 and 1853.619

616 Diocese of London Estate records, Deeds, 1698-1825, LMA, DL/D/L; Diocese of London Estate records, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G; Diocese of London, Surveys and valuations of land and messuages in the parishes of Fulham, Hammersmith and Ealing, Middlesex, 1809-53, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328; Apportionment for the parish of Fulham in the county of Middlesex,1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith in the county of Middlesex, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B; Prerogative court of Canterbury, TNA, PROB 11; Commissary court of London, LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; Consistory court of London, LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; C. Feret, Extracts from the court rolls of the manor of Fulham, Vol. 2, 1603-1747 (undated), HFA F352.01 FER; H. Miles, The manor: deeds and documents relating to Hammersmith and Fulham in the archives of the Bishop of London’s “London bishoprick estate (1959), p. 149, HFA, H352.01MAN. 617 A survey and valuation of all the lands and buildings within the hamlet of Hammersmith in the county of Middlesex. Taken and made by order of the vestry of the said hamlet by John Willock (1793), HFA, PAH/1/157; Particulars of the valuation of Hammersmith parish or assessment made 1846, HFA, PAH/1/158/2; J. Maclure, Index to Maclure’s survey of the parish of Fulham 1853 (1853), HFA, F336.27 MAC. 618 These are not all for garden land. Pieces of property recur through the period but with new tenants. 619 Diocese of London, Surveys, 1809-53, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS 12328.

196

Over the period 1680 to 1861 there were 13 bishops who held office for a varying number of years, usually until their death.620 Each bishop may have had his own approach to administering the estate but for this study the term ‘bishop’ is used to refer to the office and not the individual, and any individual idiosyncrasies are not considered. The estate was managed by two paid officials, a steward and a receiver- general.621

The tithe apportionment schedules for Fulham in 1843 and Hammersmith in 1845 give a snapshot of all land use, including the acreage of market garden or nursery land owned and/or occupied by gardeners in the two parishes, but do not include rents.622 The bishop’s head lessees were given as ‘owner’ in the schedules rather than ‘occupier’, confirming Clay’s opinion that their under-tenants ‘in every way regarded them as landlords’, and their presence in the ‘landlord’ column of the schedules also suggests this attitude was held by the surveyors and parish officials.623 Taking the lead from the schedules, in this analysis of the tithe surveys the head lessees of the bishop’s land are identified as the landlord.

In addition to the leases summarised in the bishop’s records, 70 original leases have been located, 32 for privately rented land and 38 where the bishop was landlord. They give information concerning landlords, tenants, terms and conditions, and descriptions of the property.624 This is relatively few for 180 years and their survival is sometimes due to having been part of court cases, making them unusual rather than

620 'Appendices: List of Bishops of London from the Conquest', in W. Sparrow Simpson, ed., Registrum Statutorum et Consuetudinum Ecclesiae Cathedralis Sancti Pauli Londiniensis (London, 1873), pp. 466-8, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/st-pauls-register, last accessed 12 January 2017. The first in the period was Henry Compton who developed the land around Fulham Palace into a botanical garden. History of the garden, www.Fulhampalace.org, last accessed 28 November 2016. 621 P. Taylor, The estates of the bishopric of London from the seventh century to the early sixteenth century, unpublished PhD thesis, University of London (1976), p. 359. 622 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B. 623 Clay, ‘The greed of Whig Bishops’, p. 152. For a garden an ‘occupier’ refers to the person who is gardening; the gardener, market gardener, or nurseryman. 624 Leases, HFA, DD; Diocese of London, Deeds, 1698-1825, LMA, DL/D/L.

197

representative. Any findings therefore can only be indicative. Fuller property descriptions have been found in valuations made of all properties for the Hammersmith parish vestry in 1793 and 1845 and in the index to Maclure’s 1853 land use map of Fulham. These give acreages and the rateable value, but not rent.625

A major problem with all these sources it that it is difficult to construct a good series of comparative rents per acre as few documents contain all the elements required - the rent, fines, acreage and term of tenure - for each piece of land, even if records are linked. Documents bundle together plots of garden land with other property, and these factors have curtailed significantly an examination of rents.626

As previous scholars have suggested that the practices of an ecclesiastical landlord were different to other landlords the bishop of London’s large estate is examined first to show how its operations impinged on garden businesses. The types of tenure, levels of fines, rents and the structure of gardens belonging to gardeners who were head lessees are considered, with a case study of one garden to show this in detail. An examination of the tithe apportionment data to identify the other head lessees and under-tenants completes the discussion of the role of the bishop in landholding. Then the overall results from the tithe schedules are considered for each parish, and the progress of specialisation, followed by a discussion of freehold land and owner- occupation of garden land, including a case study of a freeholder. As it appears that garden land was recorded as being occupied by non-gardeners this is explored

625 A survey and valuation of all the lands and buildings within the hamlet of Hammersmith, 1793, HFA, PAH/1/157; Particulars of the valuation of Hammersmith, 1846, HFA, PAH/1/158/2; Maclure, Index to Maclure’s survey, HFA, F336.27 MAC. It had been the intention to use the Middlesex deeds registry resource at the LMA, an excellent source containing abstracts of all property transactions in the parish from 1709. Taking 1740 as a test year 23 deeds for Fulham were found of which 4 dealt with garden ground. The task of evaluating over 3,600 deeds for the whole period was considered to be too time consuming within the limitations of this study, despite the value of potentially finding 500 or more relevant documents, and therefore it was not used. 3,600 is probably a considerable underestimate as it assumes no increase in land sales activity or urban development between 1740 and 1861. LMA, The Middlesex deeds registry, 1709- 1938, Information leaflet number 38 (Revised 2010). 626 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening.

198

together with the size of garden businesses and their land-use composition. Finally, the characteristics of landlords and the control they exercised through covenants in leases is considered.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON’S ESTATE The bishop of London was the principal landowner in the parish. In 1843/5 his estate contained Fulham Palace on 39 acres, plus 253 acres in Hammersmith and 404 acres in Fulham that were rented out, comprising 17 per cent of the total acreage of the parishes. The estate included houses, arable, pasture, osier beds and garden land, but on the Fulham side almost a third of all garden ground in 1843 belonged to the bishopric.627 Estate records made reference to 83 head lessees predominantly from the gentry and aristocracy (47.4 per cent), tradesmen (19.3 per cent), and 12.3 per cent were gardeners and nurserymen.628 Most head lessees lived relatively locally: 35.8 per cent lived in Fulham and Hammersmith with another 6 per cent in adjacent parishes; 40.3 per cent were from the City or the rest of London; and 17.9 per cent were living outside London.629

The leases were either beneficial leasehold by three lives, also known as life tenure (64.4 per cent), or for 21 years (33.7 per cent), with only one for rack rents.630 Atherall comments that Middlesex had longer leases than most rural counties.631 Over the period of this study there were few changes in the type of tenure attached to particular plots of land. Some were divided when new houses were built; two were switched from three lives to 21 year leases and three switched from 21 years to life

627 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B. 628 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G. This refers to 57 people for whom occupations are known. 629 Of the 67 whose residence was known. 630 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G; G. Best, Temporal pillars: Queen Anne’s bounty, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Church of England (Cambridge, 1964), p. 371. These were the typical proportions held by bishops as found by the Committee on Church Leases in 1837-9. The lives on leases could be family, investors, relatives, just about anyone, including the king on one. 631 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, p. 2.

199

tenure, the latter being potentially of benefit to some tenants as the lifespan of the gentry had increased in the early modern period.632 One 21 year lease was changed to a life tenure under pressure from the lessee, ‘at the great importunities of Mr Alderman Gosling’; conversely when two Dutch lessees took over land they ‘refused to meddle with it on a life tenure not being able to comprehend what we meant thereby’ and it was exchanged for a 21 year lease.633 These are evidence of negotiations taking place between landlord and tenant and accommodations being made for tenants.

Life tenure consisted of three cost elements: large entry fines when a new lease was obtained, low reserved rents paid annually, and fines paid each time a new life was added. These leases produced unpredictable but occasional high income for the bishopric. More predictable income came from term leases which also had high entry fines and a low reserved rent but with a more predictable element of a lower renewal fine usually every 7 years.634 Re-valuations had not occurred and in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most reserved rents were still at their 1647 level.635 Entry fines were the largest cost, calculated on the basis of the economic rent less the reserved rent (the net economic rent), multiplied by a number of years value, usually 14. Fines for renewals or the addition of a life were based on a formula of the net economic rent multiplied by either 1, 1.25 or 1.5 years, and in Fulham the multipliers were rarely increased. Thus the principle variable in setting fines was the economic rent.

Comments in the ledgers indicate that establishing the economic rent was of concern, but the method of finding it seems to have been haphazard, and lessees were

632 Clay, ‘The greed of Whig Bishops’, pp. 142-4; P. Earle, The making of the English middle class: business, society and family life in London, 1660-1730 (1989), pp. 308-10. 633 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G. Gosling was an alderman of the City of London and probably a partner in Goslings Bank in Fleet Street. 634 Best, Temporal pillars, pp. 322, 370-1; Clay, ‘The greed of Whig Bishops’, p. 140. 635 Parliamentary survey of the manor of Fulham, Middlesex, 1647 August 22, LMA, DL/D/F/020/MS10464.

200

reluctant to provide answers. A note in one account said, ‘Care next Renewal. In the Year 1752 I accidentally met with a very accurate Account /of the value/ of the several Leases’. The renewal fine in 1739 had been £172 but in 1767 when a new life was added a fine of £200 was achieved using the new valuation. This occurred infrequently; a comment on another lease in 1774 said ‘How this come to be let out of the ordinary way I know not, but I think we had to do with very Ingenious People’.636 Nevertheless the administration could be astute; merely the intimation of a survey to obtain a true valuation of the property could be successful in securing higher renewal rates, especially if the tenant knew the true economic rent was greater than the new rate being offered to calculate fines.637 The effect of a change in the economic rent can be seen in the case of William Burchell’s 13.5 acres of nursery land. In 1790 an economic rent of £5 per acre gave a valuation of £67.10s.0d, but following a survey in 1814 the same land was valued at £93.10s.0d (c. £7 per acre) which would inflate future fines.638 To rectify such anomalies, new surveys of the properties had been introduced gradually in Fulham from 1809.639 The bishopric must have considered the old economic rents sufficiently outdated to recoup the survey costs through increased fines, indicating that a significant shortfall in potential revenue had been occurring.

Some garden land was rented directly to gardeners by the estate, but only seven gardeners and nurserymen have been found as head lessees on garden land in the period covered by the ledgers. Being a gardener who was a head lessee gave two advantages over the gardeners who were sub-letting from head lessees. Firstly, they were not paying an annual economic rent until the early nineteenth century and

636 Diocese of London, Lease books, LMA, 1698-1804, DL/D/G. 637 Diocese of London, Lease books, LMA, 1698-1804, DL/D/G; Particulars and valuation of two farms near Shepherds Bush in the parish of Fulham, Mddx., under lease for lives to Mrs Mary Marryat and the late Samuel Marryat Esq., 1828, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. 638 Surveys and valuations of lands and messuages in the parishes of Fulham, Hammersmith and Ealing, Middlesex: Part of Great Hurlingham, 1814, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. 639 Diocese of London, Surveys, 1809-1853, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328.

201

secondly their security of tenure was tantamount to freehold.640 As long as they were able to pay the fines for renewal, or adding a life, this facilitated making improvements.641 They could invest in glassware, experiment with cultivating novel products, and upgrade the garden’s infrastructure such as enclosing gardens, knowing that they would reap the benefit. If payment of a large capital sum for a fine was problematic then an option was to take a mortgage and/or partner to make the payment, allowing the gardener to spread repayment from income over several years.642

The bishop of London’s dealings with his Fulham estate may not have corresponded to the strategy of other ecclesiastical landlords as he was not an absentee landlord; during the summer months, and ‘for a considerable part of the year’, he lived at Fulham Palace.643 A paternalistic approach to the estate can be seen in comments about lessees, negotiations and reductions in fines. When a Mrs Williams applied to renew the lease on the death of her husband in 1767 ‘a great deal of pain was taken in adjusting the real value of this leasehold which hitherto had not been rightly understood’. The fine was £254.15s.0d. Then it was decided that £74.16s.8d for 44 acres of garden land and 23 acres of meadow was a ‘great [reserved] rent’ and instead the economic rent was reduced making the fine £190.4s.0d. ‘But the Bishop on several Remonstrances from the Widow and some Favourable circumstance appearing as to her real knowledge of the Value of her estate Kindly mitigated the … Fine’ and charged her only £126, half the cost calculated by the standard formula.644 Such fine reductions were significant benefits to a lessee who was then sub-letting at an economic rent.

640 Best, Temporal pillars, p. 37. 641 A. Gritt, ‘The operation of lifeleasehold in south-west Lancashire, 1649-97’, AgHR, 53:1 (2005), p. 2. 642 Sheen and Napier, 1740, LMA, MDR/1740/2/358. 643 E. James, An enquiry as to the duration of life in rural districts. Including the parishes of Barnes, Putney, Kew, and Mortlake, in the county of Surrey; and the parishes of Acton, Ealing, Chiswick, Hammersmith, and Fulham, in the county of Middlesex (2nd edition, 1858), p. 57. 644 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G.

202

Reserved rents were a regular, although small, income while fines were irregular but substantial. Clay suggests that the revenue from reserved rents was usually used ‘to discharge institutional responsibilities’ whereas fines ‘tended to be the main source of the personal incomes’ of the bishops and this arrangement may have been a deterrent to ending the system of beneficial leases.645 This may explain the apparent reluctance in Fulham to modernise to annual tenancies, while striving to discover actual economic rents to increase fine income. Alternative views suggest that ‘in the 18th century no distinction was made between the bishop and diocese’ in terms of sources of income.646

The administration could go to great lengths to make sure the leases were renewed, perhaps to retain good tenants, or to ensure the cycle of gardening work continued and the output did not deteriorate, threatening payment of rents. A gardener, Thomas Green, became a head lessee when he married a widow who had garden land. The property was 11.5 acres at a reserved rent of £23.647 After 14 years had passed ‘the lessee Green had been often applied to … to renew but being in low circumstances, had always declined’, and he continued to occupy the land for a year beyond the full 21 year term.648 Nevertheless the bishop granted a lease in 1791 with an entry fine based on 13 years’ purchase, amounting to £273 but ‘in consideration of Green’s poverty [he] was pleased to remit £63 and took only £210 as a fine’. After a further 7 years Green renewed paying a fine of £27.10s.0d and, having secured a full 21 years on the lease, turned his asset into capital through a sale.649 There was an active market in selling leases. Generally ecclesiastical estates’ fines had not increased in

645 Clay, ‘The greed of Whig Bishops’, p. 156. 646 Best, Temporal pillars, p. 370; Personal communication, December 2016, from Professor D.M. Thompson, Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge. With thanks to Prof. Thompson for permission to include this insight and for bringing Best’s Temporal Pillars to my attention. 647 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G. 648 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G. 649 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G.

203

line with the fall in interest rates making church leases ‘one of the most lucrative investments available’.650

Evidence from Fulham and Hammersmith shows that bishops did not gain as high an income from their estates as their head lessees did from sub-letting, and does not support E.P. Thompson’s view of the exploitation of tenants by bishops. On one piece of land the head lessee’s fines in 1783 were based on a rent per acre of £3.10s.0d, compared to the £4 he was paid by his under-tenant, producing a 14.3 per cent annual gross profit.651 Clay found that some head-lessees required their under- tenant to pay them both an economic rent, as well as the under tenant paying all the charges the Bishop levied on the head lessee.652 Paternalism by the bishop has already been mentioned, but the estate books also highlight examples of the perceived sharp practice of his head lessees in their transactions with others. An 1810 survey of property noted: A brick and tiled new built small messuage or dwellinghouse with a large workshop both erected [by the under-tenant] … about 12 years since under a promise of a term from Sir Ph[ilip] Stephens but on his decease possession has been taken by Lord Ranelagh … on giving the representatives of this man (who died and left a family) only £100 for what it is said cost him at least £750.653 On another occasion in 1824 the bishop’s estate was the object of similar behaviour according to a survey of the land occupied by Mr George Bird: This land was sold to the present occupier who is a Brickmaker for the purpose of digging for Bricks; and it has been dug out accordingly by about 3ft deep; if so the Value of the Earth taken must be 900 or £1000: The Four Tenements now Erected on the Land were put there as a Compensation for the Damage done to the Estate by excavating and carrying away the Clay etc and burning Bricks on the Premises;

650 Clay, ‘The greed of Whig Bishops’, pp. 134, 141. 651 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G; Mary Rough and another v. John Riley 1783-1792, Exhibit B: Lease for 42 years of land in Fulham, TNA, C 24/2506/9. 652 Clay, ‘The greed of Whig Bishops’, p. 145. 653 Survey and valuation of leasehold estates in the parish of Fulham, Middlesex, 1810, LMA, DL/D/F/021/MS12328.

204

the Value of the Cottages is about £250 !!! Therefore it should seem that the Tenant has been a gainer of £750 by this transaction.654 Sales particulars commented on the covenants in the bishop’s leases: ‘The covenants are in general favourable to the tenant and though there are covenants against assigning without the license of the bishop, these covenants are only intended to prevent the leases passing into improper hands.’655 It would seem that allowances were made to a preferred tenant.

Previous studies have highlighted the high rents that could be obtained for garden land.656 The estate records do not support this claim in respect of the out-dated reserved rents for the bishop’s land. In the ledgers the fine for a 7 year renewal has not been found above 1.5 years’ net economic rent; the standard for issuing a new lease was 14 years purchase; and as has been shown fines could be reduced.657 The rents that under-tenants paid for garden land are generally unknown. Rents paid by four under-tenants have been found ranging from £4 to £7 per acre between 1740 and 1818, but they cannot be compared with the fines and rent paid by the head lessees as corresponding records are not available.658

The bishop’s estate can be viewed through the tithe apportionment schedules, where the estate amounted to 661 acres including 293.9 acres of garden ground.659 The schedules show that eighteen head lessees leased land from the estate, with 10 leasing garden ground, and all but one either lived in Fulham or had a connection to

654 Particulars and valuation of sundry messuages tenements and lands part of the demesnes of the Lord Bishop of London in the manor of Fulham, 4 November 1824, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. All punctuation, underlining etc., is as in the original. 655 Forty-eight acres of market garden ground, Fulham … Particulars and conditions of sale 1825, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. 656 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 86, 118; Burnby and Robinson, Now turned into fair garden plots, p. 4; Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. 40, 46-51, 221-2; Beavington, ‘Early market gardening’, p. 97; Bailey, The metamorphosis of Battersea, pp. 36, 81. 657 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G. 658 Lease, Henry Harcourt to William Fletcher, 1740, HFA, DD/67/40/2; Conveyance, George Dodington to Peter Brushell, 1752, HFA, DD/22/1; Bill and complaint, Mary Rough and John Maynard, 1793, TNA, C 12/2182/1; Lease, John Lane to George Dobson, 1818, HFA, DD/216/62. 659 This excludes the acreage for the bishop’s palace and grounds.

205

the parish. Five of those leasing garden land were gentry or men of independent means, and five were gardeners. These included some of the most prominent gardeners in the parish, the Fitch brothers’ partnership, Charles Bagley, Richard Perry in partnership with his widowed mother-in-law Mrs Cock, George Bower and George Matyear, a former resident.

The businesses of these gardeners were part of an intricate web of family connections, landlords, tenants and land use. Together they rented 25.9 per cent of all garden land on the estate, in addition to agricultural land, their own homes, business premises, worker’s cottages, access roads, and creeks for water management. In total they rented 88.9 acres from the bishop (table 4.1), but for three of these gardeners the bishop’s land was a small portion of their total land. Richard Perry in partnership with Mrs Cock also rented land on his own account from two other landlords. In addition to land rented from the bishop, Charles Bagley rented two-thirds of his land from eight other landlords, including a family member, while the Fitch brothers rented most of their land from three private landlords. All these gardeners rented the majority of their land, including some from another head lessee, Lawrence Sulivan. George Matyear was a head lessee who had 7.5 acres of freehold garden ground as well as land held from the bishop. Matyear had lived on his father’s Fulham garden, but by this date he worked garden land in nearby Chiswick that he had inherited from his father. He rented most of the family land in Fulham to his brother Robert, who gardened it with a further 36.75 acres of garden ground and 1.25 acres of osier beds and meadow, also rented, making Robert’s entire business grounds some 64 acres.660 Finally, George Bower had a small acreage at Rowberry Mead and this is now discussed.

660 Will of George Matyear, 1832, TNA, PROB 11/1796/38.

206

Table 4.1 Total business acreage of gardeners who were head lessees on the bishop of London’s estate in the Fulham tithe apportionment schedule, 1843.661

D., H. & Charles Richard George George W. Fitch Bagley Perry Matyear Bower Total acreage 116.5 101 36 26.75 5.4 Bishop’s estate Garden ground 14.5 32.5 8.5 14.5 5.1 Other agriculture 8.75 4.5 Infrastructure 0.25 0.3 Private landlords Garden ground 89.75 61 16.5 7.5# Other agriculture 2.25 5.75 11 Infrastructure 0.75 1.75 Total number of 3 8 2 0 0 landlords*

Source: Calculated from the Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B. Notes: #This land was freehold. * Excluding the Bishop.

THE BOWER FAMILY AT ROWBERRY MEAD A longitudinal view of one small plot on the bishop’s estate over a 100 years illustrates the advantages of being a head lessee. Rowberry Mead was 5 acres of garden land on the bank of the Thames.662 It had been converted from meadow to garden sometime before 1761, but the annual reserved rent of £8 had not been adjusted to reflect the higher earning potential of garden land and remained at the level in the 1647 parliamentary survey.663 The Bower family had a long connection with land around Rowberry Mead. A Mr Bower was in the 1757 highway rate book

661 None of the bishop’s land in Hammersmith was garden land. 662 Just to the north of the present location of Fulham football ground. 663 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G; Parliamentary survey, 1647, LMA, DL/D/F/020/MS10464.

207

‘for the cherry orchard late Thompson’ on adjacent land.664 The Bowers then disappear from the records for a few years. From 1761 Mr Cobb, a draper in Drury Lane, Westminster, held a life tenure on the Mead. This lapsed with his death in 1796 and ‘the Bishop thought proper to grant it upon 21 years’ as a new lease to William Bower.665 Bower had sub-let from Cobb since at least 1782 as that year he paid the land tax as Cobb’s tenant.666 Table 4.2 shows Bower paid £170 based on a standard entry fine of 14 years purchase and an economic value of £20.3s.0d plus £13.10s.0d in fees.667 This must have been an acceptable arrangement as he renewed the lease after 7 years had elapsed, and paid a fine of £18.15s.0d based on 1.25 years net annual value.668

Rowberry Mead was surveyed in 1809 and the report gives a picture of the garden. There was ‘a small timber board and tiled dwelling house; a timbers, board and tiled Ware Room, with a Stable, under one roof, and a cart shed’.669 The new valuation of £26 per annum was made up of £5 for the house and outbuildings; £2 for 1 acre of ‘banks and boggy land’; 3 acres of ‘occasionally wet land’ at £4 per acre; and 1 acre of ‘the driest part of the land’ at £7 per acre, with a third of an acre of ditches and the site of the buildings ‘gratis’. The variation in rent, dependent upon the quality of the garden land, highlights one of the difficulties in evaluating and comparing rents for a parcel of land. The surveyor was not very impressed with the suitability of the land

664 C. Feret, Fulham old and new, Vol. 3 (3 vols, 1900), p. 89. 665 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G. 666 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G; William Bower, Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1782-1832, LMA, MR/PLT/4790-4888. 667 This is the same basis of calculation found by Clay 668 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G. 669 Survey and valuation, Rowberry Mead, 1809, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328.

208

Table 4.2 Cost of a 21 year lease for Rowberry Mead, Fulham, over 7 year intervals, 1795-1815.

1795-1801 1802-8 1809-15 (new 21 (7 year (7 year year lease) renewal) renewal) Reserved rent £8 £8 £8

Annual economic rent £20.3s.0d £23 £26

Entry fine + costs £183.10s.0d

Renewal fine £18.15s.0d £22.10s.0d Average cost per annum for 7 years £34.4s.3d £10.13s.6d £11.4s.2d (including fine) Average cost per acre per annum for 7 years £6.16s.10d £2.2s.8d £2.4s.10d (incl fine) Cumulative average cost per annum since £34.4s.3d £22.9s.0d £18.14s.7d 1795 Bishop of London’s income for 7 year £239.10s.0d £74.15s.0d £78.10s.0d period Sources: Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G; Miles, The manor, HFA, H352.01MAN; Feret, Extracts from the court rolls, HFA, F352.01 FER; Survey and valuation of a small estate called Rowberry Mead situate at Crabtree in the parish of Fulham, Mddx., 1809, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328.

209

for a garden business: This may be considered a Casualty piece of land for garden ground: In dry years it may be very productive but can never have an early produce from it’s low situation and being subject to floods I think it would be worth as much in Grass as it is in it’s present mode of cultivation.670 William’s wife inherited the lease in 1816 and in her will in 1820 she mentioned her ‘eldest son George Bower having been provided for’.671 At the next renewal in 1823 George was granted a 21 year lease.672 Another survey in 1837 valued the property at £40.673 Despite the earlier disparaging remarks the garden had continued for a further 28 years and the new surveyor was slightly more optimistic: The land before alluded to although it is embanked against the River is subject to the inundation of the high Tides as well as of the water forcing its way through and injuring the banks which occasions an expense to the tenant in making good the same; also damage to the crops on the ground in Winter, by rendering the earth wet and cold. Nevertheless, the soil is fertile and produces good crops in the summer season.674 As a result the surveyor made an allowance for the £2 Bower had paid to repair the embankment when assessing the net economic rent for the next renewal fine. George died in 1845 and his son, also George, took over. In 1851 he was employing 6 men on the 5 acres and gardened there until his death in 1859.675

The economics of renting this essentially freehold land, albeit marginal in its soil condition, show why it was a good investment. When William Bower obtained the

670 Survey and valuation, Rowberry Mead, 1809, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. 671 Will of Elizabeth Bower, 1820, TNA, PROB 11/1634/175. 672 Diocese of London, Lease books, 1698-1804, LMA, DL/D/G; Miles, The manor, p. 149, HFA, H353.01 MAN. 673 Survey and valuation, Rowberry Mead, 1809, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328; Report relative to a messuage and garden ground being part of the demesnes of the manor of Fulham, Middlesex held on lease for 21 years by Mr George Bower from the 22nd June 1830, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. 674 Rowberry Mead. Report to a messuage and garden ground, 1837, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. 675 Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; England and Wales, Civil registration death index, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 4 December 2016.

210

lease after a 14 year sub-let, he already had knowledge of the profitability of the property and was willing to pay a high entry fine to obtain a lease (table 4.2). Including the reserved rent, this averaged over the next 7 years to the equivalent of an annual payment of £34.4s.3d. In 1802, after 7 years had expired, payment of a renewal fine, at a much lower cost than the original entry fine, secured another 21 year period. Despite the valuation having increased the annual economic rent, this averaged to an equivalent cost per annum of £10.13s.6d for the next 7 years. At the next seven year renewal, after another rise in valuation, the annual cost over 7 years averaged to £11.4s.2d, and gives an equivalent annual rent per acre falling from £6.16s.2d to £2.4s.10d over the 21 years.

The average annual cost decreased the longer the lease was held as the entry fine was spread over a greater length of time. There is no further information on the level of the entry fines for William’s two sons, but the longevity of the family keeping the land speaks of its value to them. Even after the bishop had had the land surveyed, and an economic rent was applied to the renewal fines, the family business continued and coped with the cycle of a high cost every 7 years followed by 6 years of low rent. As the Bower family gardened the land for at least 79 years, over three generations, they evidently had a different opinion to the surveyor about the suitability of the location.

This analysis of the bishop’s estate confirms Clay’s findings on ecclesiastical estates that little land was rented out at rack rents, and fines did not take full account of changing interest rates, resulting in lower costs to head lessees. Only entry at the highest point in the chain of occupation at head lessee guaranteed a gardener the financial advantage of lower input costs and the long term security to make changes. When compared to other gardeners who were sub-letting at economic rents head lessees benefitted from lower costs and the paternalistic approach to the management of the estate. Even after new valuations were introduced gardeners did not give up their land; being a head lessee gave a gardener a secure tenure and sufficient

211

economic advantage to retain the lease. On this estate the management style undermines the ‘greedy bishop’ view of some historians. The importance to a gardener of being a head lessee of some land is emphasised by subsequent results that show only a small number of gardeners held freehold or copyhold garden land.

FREEHOLD, COPYHOLD AND OWNER-OCCUPATION Gardeners are rarely identified in any sources as copyholders of garden land, although they are mentioned as occupying copyhold gardens as tenants. Few gardeners in the 1843/5 tithe apportionment schedules were owner-occupiers, and the schedules do not distinguish between owners who were holding freehold and those with copyhold land. As copyhold was ‘nearly if not quite equal to freehold’ and conferred similar advantages to gardeners they will be considered together under freehold.676 Ten gardeners were owners in the Fulham tithe apportionment schedule holding 22.2 per cent of freehold garden land, compared to five in Hammersmith, holding 9.2 per cent.677 This is not to say that all the freehold land held by gardeners was owner-occupied, rather the mix of land tenure in garden businesses was an intricate structure of interconnected family ownership and occupation; lessees who were also lessors; and freeholders who also rented land from a variety of landlords.

Through linking the tithe schedule to other sources it has been found that only four gardeners in Fulham and three in Hammersmith who owned freehold garden land were actively gardening in the parish, summarised in table 4.3. Considering Fulham garden businesses first, William Matyear’s 23 freehold acres formed part of his much larger garden business with another 53 acres of garden land rented from four other landlords, including his brother Robert. The owner of a half-acre plot of freehold garden land, John Eyres, rented 11.6 acres for his business. Gardeners Robert Matyear and Richard Steel, who were freeholders resident in the parish were not owner-occupiers. Both rented all the land that formed their garden business, while

676 ‘Copyhold estate for sale’, The Times, Issue 16439, 10 June 1837, p. 7. 677 This excludes head lessees of the bishop occupying their own land.

212

Table 4.3 Total business acreage of active freehold and copyhold gardeners in Fulham, 1843, and Hammersmith, 1845.

William John Robert Richard J & C Henry George Matyear Eyres Matyear Steel Lee Clark Dobson Total business 76.43 12.12 62.61* 17.07* 11.21 11.21 10.16 acreage Freehold (44.63)** (1.58)** Garden 22.9 0.52 44.11 1.58 6.44 10.86 2.41 Ground Other 0.44 agriculture Infrastructure 0.51 0.08 0.35 Private

landlords Garden 52.9 11.6 57.11 13.96 4.44 7.72 ground Other 5.07 1.75 agriculture Infrastructure 0.12 0.43 1.36 0.33 0.03 Total number 5 3 2 5 2 0 1 of landlords

Sources: Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B. Notes: *Excludes freehold land rented out **Freehold acreage rented out renting out all their freehold garden land to other gardeners. Steel rented from five landlords while Matyear rented his brother George’s freehold land and land from two other large landowners. Garden businesses did not just have garden land; two included other agricultural land and three had plots containing infrastructure. Two gardeners resident in nearby parishes, the George Matyear already mentioned, and Warwick Bagley, were brothers of Fulham gardeners and rented out all their freehold land in Fulham to their brothers. Two further gardeners, who were resident in adjacent parishes and were not actively gardening in Fulham, also rented out their

213

land, and the trustees of a deceased Fulham gardener rented to a family member in Fulham. These intricacies in landholding and occupation distinguish another dimension of a family business.

The pattern was less complex in Hammersmith. One gardener, Henry Clarke, owned all the land he gardened (10.86 acres), but he also rented out a third of an acre of garden ground. The Lee brothers’ partnership owned all their land in Hammersmith (6.4 acres), but rented additional garden land nearby in Fulham. George Dobson owned a 2.4 acre garden plot and rented 8 acres from a landlord resident in Westminster. Unlike the Fulham gardeners, these owner-occupiers did not have any agricultural land, but focused on gardening, while Isaac Farlow was operating a very small garden business as a secondary occupation on land behind the Queen’s Head public house in Hammersmith which he was running. Finally, two gardeners living in Chelsea owned garden land in Hammersmith; one rented 4.5 acres to a gardener and another rented half an acre to a developer.

Overall there was very little owner-occupation of freehold/copyhold garden or nursery land. No one gardening in the parish was both a head lessee and a freeholder. Just two gardeners owned all the land they gardened: their businesses were relatively small and it is possible they rented additional acreage. George Matyear and Warwick Bagley rented to their brothers the land they had inherited from their fathers.678 Why some people rented out their freehold garden ground whilst also renting land themselves is not at all clear. It could have been financially advantageous, consolidated their holdings, or provided more suitable ground. Even for freeholders, the predominant arrangement was that gardeners rented land, as other studies have found.679

678 Census returns 1851, Middlesex, Brentford, Chiswick, TNA, HO 107/1699; Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Elthorne, West Drayton, TNA, HO 107/655/4; Will of George Matyear, 1832, TNA, PROB 11/1796/38; Will of Robert Bagley, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1753/451. 679 L. Bennett, The horticultural industry of Middlesex (University of Reading, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Miscellaneous Studies No. 7, 1952), p. 24.

214

OCCUPIERS OF GARDEN GROUND There were 62 people occupying garden land in the Fulham tithe apportionment schedule, compared to 50 in Hammersmith, including freeholders and head lessees. Figure 4.1 shows that individual occupiers in Fulham had larger acreages than those in Hammersmith taking into account all the property they occupied; the median acreage in Fulham was 6.9 acres compared to 2.6 acres in Hammersmith. However, close consideration reveals that not all occupiers of garden land were running gardening businesses.

Figure 4.1 Total acreage of individual occupiers of garden ground in Fulham (1843) and Hammersmith (1845) tithe apportionment schedules.

Sources: Calculated from the Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B.

215

Focussing first on those with garden businesses, the largest commercial garden in Fulham was 116.5 acres compared to 33.75 acres in Hammersmith.680 Six businesses in Fulham occupied more than 50 acres, the largest being Fitch brothers’ partnership and Charles Bagley (101 acres). In total the four Bagley brothers occupied 226 acres and were reputedly called the ‘kings of Fulham’, and the two Matyear businesses occupied 134 acres.681 Thus three families in 1843 occupied around half the acreage of garden businesses in Fulham. It can be no coincidence that the largest businesses were also those where it was shown in chapter 3 that the gardeners had received apprentice training: membership of a company would have given access to commercial and social connections. Alexander Dancer, with 62 acres, was the only occupier of a large business who was not in a livery company. There were 31 other smaller commercial gardeners, shown in the tithe survey as occupying from under 5 acres to 48 acres. In Hammersmith there were no comparably large businesses by this period, they were smaller overall and had much smaller acreages of garden ground. The largest in Hammersmith was the 23.5 acres of garden land (33.75 in total acreage) occupied by Sarah Martin. Only 11 gardeners occupied more than 10 acres of garden ground compared to 26 in Fulham. This is an underestimate of the acreage of some garden businesses as they would probably have also rented as under- tenants, but such details appear infrequently.

The tithe schedule confirms that gardeners did not just garden. In addition to their garden or nursery land gardeners also occupied non-garden land. Most had small amounts for their home or business premises, access roads and drainage ditches. Twelve gardeners in Fulham and four in Hammersmith had land that was being used for other agricultural purposes. Meadow, ranging from half an acre to 11 acres, formed part of 10 businesses in Fulham, three had small amounts of land for growing osiers, and James Salter was described as using 4 acres in Fulham Field for farming-

680 This is total acreage, garden land plus all other premises and agricultural land. 681 G. Evans, ‘Farms and market gardens’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), p. 235. This description of the family, although given by Evans as a quotation, is not attributed to a source.

216

gardening. Garden businesses in Hammersmith had a wider range of land use, with urban cowsheds, brickfields, grassland, osier beds and arable land. One partnership had land that was an active brickfield and other gardeners were using reclaimed brickfield as garden ground, arable or osier beds. Osiers, for use in the basket making industry, were grown the on the wet land of the Thames riverbank, or in water-filled pits left after brickearth had been excavated.682 A clue as to why gardeners might be occupying meadow land comes from a railway company prospectus offering surplus land for sale in Hammersmith. It noted that meadow land would be needed for cattle travelling to London markets to ‘repose the night antecedent to the market’.683

In Fulham the businesses with a large acreage were more likely to have agricultural land in addition to garden land. 684 The varied production of one large gardener indicates how he had adapted to meet demand (or to stimulate it) while also diversifying production to reduce risk from disease or bad weather. Charles Bagley was a nurseryman, a market gardener and a pig breeder on 101 acres. In the late 1840s he had introduced into his rotation an animal fodder crop of mangel wurzels, grown on 7 acres of land in south Fulham. Using gardening methods he produced 80 tons per acre, amounting to revenue of over £1,300, and sometimes two crops could be grown, in addition to 43,500 cabbages and a crop of lettuce from the same land in one year. To achieve this level of production he reputedly applied 100 tons of manure per acre annually. Additionally, his ‘young Nursery Stock’ comprised 30,100 gooseberry bushes, 6,000 blackcurrants and 3,000 Victoria plum trees. Later he turned some of his land over to pig breeding, and when the business was sold in 1872

682 J. Bowack, The antiquities of Middlesex, being a collection of the several church monuments in that county Also an historical account of each church and parish with the seats, villages, and names of the most eminent inhabitants, etc. (1705-6), p. 25. 683 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; E. Willson, ‘Farming, market and nursery gardening’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), p. 100. The date is not given but was sometime between 1828 and 1839. 684 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 380-1.

217

the catalogue included 250 pigs, 20 sows and a boar.685 Another five gardeners have been found who kept piggeries in Fulham in the mid-nineteenth century. Pigs were also kept in the eighteenth century but probably not on the same scale; rather they were for domestic use and fattened on unsaleable vegetable matter and fruit.686

Consideration of the progress of specialisation is problematic as it becomes increasingly evident that finding out exactly what the land was used for is extremely difficult. Few documents give a garden’s entire produce or animals, and chapter 3 has shown that occupational descriptions are not always informative. Court cases or mortgage agreements occasionally provide inventories of businesses, but usually refer only to fixed or transferable assets such as fruit trees, seeds or flower bulbs, and the vegetables or salad crops were omitted as once they were not tended or were removed from the ground they spoiled quickly. Cultivation schedules for 1727, 1787 and 1861, have survived for three businesses situated close together in south Fulham. They give a glimpse of the quantity and variety of fruit, nuts, flowers and vegetables that businesses produced and illustrate the differing amounts of specialisation in businesses.

James Ceney was a gardener of 40 acres whose land and wharf in south Fulham was shown on John Rocques 1747 map (map 2.1).687 In 1727, following his death, there was a dispute over inheritance heard in the chancery court, and an inventory was made.688 Nineteen different tree species were listed including 10 types of fruit trees. The presence of young trees and rootstock suggests that Ceney ran a nursery

685 ‘Answers to Agricultural Queries’, The British Farmer’s Magazine, 23:45 (1853), pp. 560-1; Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, (September 21, 1872) p. 1269. 686 Will of George Matyear, 1832, TNA, PROB 11/1796/38, Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; Maclure, Index to Maclure’s survey, HFA, F336.27 MAC; John Wilcox, Unpublished Depositions (1786-97), TNA C 24/2452. 687 J. Rocque, A new and accurate survey of the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of Southwark: with the country about it for nineteen miles in length and thirteen miles in depth (1747). Also known as Coney, Seney or Siney. An arrow on the map points to Sineys Gardens, chapter 2, p. 50. 688 Moore v. Ceney, Bill and three answers, 1727, TNA, C 11/2405/1.

218

predominantly rearing fruit trees and fruit bushes for sale, with other forest and ornamental trees and some specialty flowers. In total there were 12,450 trees and plants with a valuation of £250. Whether this was an entire list of cultivation or only the fixed assets is unclear but the latter seems more likely.

Sixty years later Mary Rough, gardening on 14.5 acres south of Peterborough House, as a sub-tenant of Henry Holland, was involved in a court case about a disputed mortgage that resulted in the business being sold by auction in 1787.689 The garden inventory included 830 pear, plum, apple and cherry trees, and 4 walnut trees, producing fruit and nuts for sale, and onion, shallot, endive, savoy, celery, parsley and mint seeds.690 The presence of 4 potato rakes and 2 carrot hoes in the listing suggests that these vegetables were also grown while a defendant related that the ‘marketable crop’ included ‘herbage, potatoes and vegetables as well as … flowers’.691 Mary also kept a hog, probably for domestic use.692 The lease with the fixed assets sold for £435, (£30 per acre) in 1787 and the moveable items, including seeds, utensils, carts and 2 horses, raised another £100.693

The final inventory was required for a mortgage in 1861 on c. 30 acres of the Fitch family garden after it was inherited by the Fitch sisters.694 The land included the acreage Mary Rough had gardened seventy years earlier. Three types of ‘crop’ were listed, fruit trees, soft fruit bushes, and rose bushes. The fruit trees, both standard trees and wall trees in a walled garden, were apples, pear, plum and apricot. They

689 Mary Rough v. John Riley, 1783-92, TNA, C 24/2506/9; Rough v. Bryon, 1793, TNA, C 12/2171/10; Rough v. Riley, 1793, amended 1796, TNA, C 12/2182/1; Unpublished depositions 1786- 1808, TNA, C 24/2452-3. The site of the garden is pointed to by an arrow on Rocque’s map, chapter 2, p. 50. 690 Rough v. Bryon, Carpue evidence, 1793, TNA, C 12/2171/10. 691 Rough v. Bryon, Bryon evidence, 1793, TNA, C 12/2171/10. 692 John Wilcox, Unpublished Depositions (1786-97), TNA C 24/2452. 693 Rough v. Riley, Bill of complaint, 1796, TNA, C 12/2182/1; John Rough, unpublished deposition, TNA, C 12/2452; Mary Rough’s story and court case is the subject of my dissertation, B. Rough, The operation of a small business in Fulham, London c. 1700-1800, unpublished MSt dissertation, University of Cambridge (2010). 694 Miss Fitch and another to James Sant Esquire and others, 1861, HFA, DD/106/67.

219

totalled 4,211 trees, valued at £900; 23,030 gooseberry, red currant and white currant bushes valued at £216; and 32,440 rose bushes valued at £341, a significant increase on the Ceney valuations of 130 years earlier.

The degree of specialisation in these gardens varied. Ceney’s 1727 business had a similar amount of specialisation to the Fitch sisters in 1861, while Mary Rough’s business in the eighteenth century was a general, mixed market garden. All the gardens were growing fruit, two in large quantities, and flowers. Mary Rough’s business is similar to the description given by Harvey of an early market garden with a mixed operation including an orchard, vegetables, seeds and flowers.695 The large number of roses in the Fitch garden suggests this was a speciality but within a broader range of fruit growing, while Ceney’s was predominantly a tree nursery, with a speciality in Crown Fritilleries, and selling some fruit, although both of these could have also had some vegetable production.696 Such valuations are a rarity, and are indicative of the value of stock that is largely unavailable for the calculations of wealth in the following chapter.697

In the tithe schedules there was a considerable amount of garden ground occupied by non-gardeners. Over half (52 per cent) the occupiers in Hammersmith and 21 per cent in Fulham had less than 2 acres of garden ground. These small acreages would not have been economically viable as a business unless they were worked with additional land that was sub-let, although use by the occupier as a secondary occupation is possible.698 Their predominance in Hammersmith suggests they were being held for rental income or their development prospects, and would have been

695 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 380-2; J. Harvey, Early nurserymen (Chichester, 1974), p. 36. 696 Harvey, Early nurserymen, pp. 1-4. 697 J. Matheson, Common ground: horticulture and the cultivation of open space in the East End of London, 1840-1900, unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University (2010), used similar single documents dealing with the compensation paid in 1840-44 to the gardeners whose businesses were taken to create Victoria Park. 698 See Isaac Farlow above, p. 214, running a public house and gardening adjacent land.

220

sub-let to gardeners. Thirteen occupiers of garden ground have been identified as developers or house proprietors and the 21.5 acres of garden land in Hammersmith and 18.4 acres in Fulham they occupied were probably sub-let to gardeners until needed for building.699 Conversely, four people known from the 1841-51 census data to have had gardening businesses do not appear as occupiers in the tithe surveys and would have rented all their garden land as under-tenants. This evidence is showing further variation in the constituent parts of a garden business, confirming earlier findings that an occupational title did not identify entirely how some gardeners obtained their livelihood. It also shows that it would be wrong to assume that all the people who were in the tithe apportionment schedules as occupiers of garden land were gardeners.

LANDLORDS Attention is now turned to the characteristics and role of landlords. There were 201 landlords in the Hammersmith tithe schedule, of whom 40 individuals, partnerships or executors, and four charitable institutions were landlords of commercial garden land. From a total of 199 landlords in Fulham, there were two institutional and 58 other landlords of garden land.700 Land ownership was concentrated into a few hands; overall six landlords in Fulham held 53 per cent of the garden land, and eight in Hammersmith had 50 per cent, although the patterns of landholding in each parish were quite different.

Landholding in Fulham was dominated by four people, excluding the bishop: an absentee landlord; a member of the aristocracy; a housing developer; and a senior member of the civil service. John Powell Powell, a man of independent means, was the largest landowner (after the bishop) having inherited 176 acres of garden ground

699 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. 11-12. 700 Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B. Four individuals, James Scott, Henry Artaria, William Bird and Lord Ranelagh, were landlords in both Fulham and Hammersmith and have been counted separately in each parish.

221

and 77 acres with other uses. The Powell family had been landlords in Fulham from at least 1666 but by 1845 Powell was living in Kent.701 His garden land was rented out to several large and medium-sized garden businesses. In contrast another large landholder, Lord Ranelagh, had been born in Fulham and lived there during his childhood before moving to Westminster. Ranelagh was head lessee of 108 acres of garden ground and 54 acres of other property in Fulham, but unlike Powell he had little freehold land, owning only 3 acres of meadow. He rented land to four large garden businesses, but also smaller acreages to eight other gardeners. Another landlord was Robert Gunter, who is known today for the family’s development of the Earl’s Court area of west London. He owned the freehold to 112 acres in Fulham, of which 68 acres were garden land.702 Gunter had one 4 acre plot in the tithe survey that was already being used as a brickfield and the adjacent 2 acre farmer-gardener plot did not have an occupier, suggesting the land was also awaiting building development or use as a brickfield.703 It seems that he was buying land ahead of urbanisation from which he could obtain an income until an opportune time to develop arrived, corresponding to Atherall’s view of the sequence of development.704 The final landlord lived from 1823 until his death in 1866 in a mansion in south Fulham. Lawrence Sulivan had senior posts in the board of trade and the war office.705 He had about 10 freehold acres which was his family home and pleasure garden, plus 72 acres he leased from the bishop. Eight acres of meadow and 16 acres of garden ground were rented out to Richard Perry, a market gardener, but the bulk of his garden ground (40 acres) was rented to the Fitch brothers. These four landlords

701 Feret, Extracts from the court rolls, HFA F352.01 FER; Census returns, 1841, Birchington, Kent, TNA, HO107/465/7; The three towers at Quex, http://www.quexpark.co.uk/quex-estate/the-three- towers-at-quex.html, last accessed 24 July 2017. John Powell Powell was born John Powell Roberts but had to adopt the surname Powell to inherit, as had several of his ancestors. 702 ‘The Gunter estate’, Survey of London, Kensington Square to Earl’s Court (vol 42, 1986), H. Hobhouse, ed., http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol42/pp196-214, last accessed 24 November 2016. 703 Particulars of the valuable Freehold, copyhold and leasehold estates with land containing fine brick earth situate at North end, Fulham, 11th March 1824, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. When he had bought the brickfield in 1824 the purchase included 230,000 bricks. 704 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. 11-12. 705 A. Wheeldon, ‘Broom House swept away’, Fulham and Hammersmith Historic Buildings Group Newsletter, 19 (2008), p. 6. Sulivan was Lord Palmerston’s brother-in-law.

222

controlled 43 per cent of garden land in Fulham, the remaining garden land was in the hands of 56 landlords.

The situation in Hammersmith was different. The two landlords with the largest acreage in Hammersmith did not hold any garden land. Joseph Marryatt, living in Mayfair, and the trustees of Thomas Bridge, held 500 acres of farmland north of Uxbridge Road on the poorer, wetter soils. Of the 44 landlords of garden ground, no one owned large acreages, with only 10 holding more than 10 acres. The largest of these was Walter Skirrow with 21.9 acres, a lawyer at Lincoln’s Inn, living in Bloomsbury.706 Captain Marryat, a naval officer and author who lived for four years in Hammersmith, owned 19 acres of garden which was all rented to a market gardener.707 Brickmakers James and William Scott, whose family business had been in Hammersmith for at least two generations, owned 138 acres in total. Only 19 acres were garden ground, and Sarah Martin, the largest market gardener in Hammersmith, rented half of these. Most of the remainder of the Scotts’ land was rented to a developer who was either the Samuel Archbutt who had built part of Belgravia, or his son Samuel Archbutt, a lawyer and developer of Brompton, west London.708 Some of Archbutt’s land was probably still being sub-let as market garden ground. The remaining landlords had between 10 and 16 acres of garden ground, but only the Lee brothers with 6.4 acres were gardening.

Linking the data on landlords of garden land in the tithe survey with their residence and occupation found in leases, the census and other sources, enables comparison to

706 ‘Domestic occurrences’, The Athenaeum, a magazine of literary and miscellaneous information, 4 (1808), p. 276; Electoral register, St James, Clerkenwell, 1832, p. 139, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 25 July 2017. 707 Feret, Fulham old and new (3 vols., 1900), Vol. 3, pp. 31-2, Vol. 2, pp. 286-8. Marryat was author of Children of the New Forest and Mr Midshipman Easy. 708 H. Hobhouse, ‘The building of Belgravia 1’, Country Life, (May 8, 1969), p. 1155; ‘Brompton Road South side’, in F. Sheppard, ed., Survey of London, Vol. 41, Brompton (1983), pp. 9-32, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol41/pp9-32, last accessed 25 November 2016.

223

be made with previous studies of landholding in general agriculture.709 Table 4.4 shows a distinct variation between Fulham and Hammersmith in the occupations of landlords. The largest occupational sectors for landlords in Hammersmith were people who were land or house proprietors or of independent means (13), and builders or brickmakers (8). Those of independent means or house proprietors also ranked first in Fulham (14), but were followed by gardeners (13).710 In both parishes the proportion of land held by professionals and merchants was similar, accounting for 17 per cent in Hammersmith and 16 per cent in Fulham.

The plots of garden ground held by builders and house proprietors in Hammersmith were smaller on average (1.4 acres) than plots held by gardeners (3.9 acres). In comparison, individual gardening plots in Fulham were 3.3 acres on average, the slightly smaller size probably reflecting the continuance of gardening on the strips of land in Fulham Field where some had been sub-divided by the construction of roads.711 It appears that developers were acquiring small pieces of land, a strategy that would limit risk and capital expenditure by building a few houses at a suitable point in the building cycle while having a continuing income flow from rent for the remaining cultivated acreage. Four plots of garden land held by developers included more than one house in the tithe description, suggesting that they were already being developed and food production was a residual activity.

709 Electoral rolls, census data, wills, leases, newspapers and surveys were the primary sources for this search, although others were used. The data includes some bias as the characteristics of people living within the parish are more readily found; when a local connection is not made then the pool of potential people with the same name in London becomes much greater making identification more difficult. 710 Independent includes annuitants and fundholders. Gardeners who were head lessees are included as landlords occupying their own land. 711 See map 2.8.

224

Table 4.4 Occupations of landlords of garden land in the Fulham and Hammersmith tithe apportionment schedules, 1843/5.712

Hammersmith Fulham

% of % of % of garden % of garden Number landlords acreage Number landlords acreage Gardener / 5 11.4 9.2 13 21.7 22.2 nurseryman Builder / 8 18.2 12.8 4 6.7 4.7 Brickmaker

Other trade 4 9.1 2.1 4 6.7 3.5

Professional / 5 11.4 17.2 8 13.3 16.0 Merchant Other 3 6.8 16.0 1 1.7 0.4 employment Proprietor of 10 22.7 23.3 4 5.0 9.1 houses Independent 3 6.8 6.4 10 18.3 36.0 means Charity / 4 9.1 11.6 2 3.3 0.7 Institution Occupation 2 4.6 1.5 14 23.3 7.5 not known

Total 44 60 Sources: Calculated from Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B.

712 Includes owner-occupiers but excludes the bishop of London.

225

Absentee landlords have been attributed with neglecting their property.713 The results in table 4.5 indicate that for both parishes a large proportion of landlords lived in, or had a strong connection to, the parish.714 This would have given them knowledge of the returns from the land and provided connections to facilitate acquiring property.

Table 4.5 Place of residence of landlords of garden land in the Fulham and Hammersmith tithe apportionment schedules,1843/5.

Hammersmith tithe Fulham tithe % of % of Place of % of garden % of garden residence Number landlords acreage Number landlords acreage

Hammersmith 26 55.1 48.48 27 45.0 38.76 / Fulham

Adjacent 6 13.6 12.29 8 13.3 13.55 parishes London 5 11.4 21.90 8 13.3 21.50

Other 0 0 2 3.3 19.33 Charity / 4 9.1 11.63 2 3.3 0.67 Organisation Not known 3 6.8 7.70 13 21.7 6.19

Total 44 60 Sources: Calculated from Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B.

713 P. Roebuck, ‘Absentee landownership in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries: A neglected factor in English agrarian history’, AgHR, 21:1 (1973), 1-17; G. Mingay, English landed society in the eighteenth century (2013), pp. 46-7. 714 This includes having spent their childhood in the district, or living in Fulham or Hammersmith for a substantial number of years in adulthood, although they may no longer have lived there at the time of the survey.

226

Excluding the 16 people (15.4 per cent) whose residence has not been found, only 3 landlords did not live in London or Middlesex.715 In numerical terms absentee landlords were not a large part of the garden property market in the mid-1840s but the 253 acres (14 per cent) held by Powell, living in Kent, represent a large holding.

The low rate of owner-occupation and the large number of locally resident landlords owning small acreages, together with the few landlords who had accumulated relatively large estates, is consistent with both trends in landholding seen in general agriculture, although not on the same scale. Some landlords may have had land elsewhere such as housing developers Archbutt and Gunter but this has not been pursued.

This examination of the occupations and residence of landlords has necessarily been a snapshot, and occupations of landlords and gardeners may change over an individual’s lifetime. For instance, Richard Perry, in partnership with William Cock, his father-in-law and a gardener in Chiswick, and Sarah Rivers, were given a lease on 8.5 acres by the bishop of London in 1841.716 According to the document assessing the entry fine, as the land had been gardened by the Perry family for ‘so long’ the entry fine was reduced by 17 per cent if payment was received within two weeks.717 Richard Perry’s father had been paying land tax on the same acreage from 1797, and probably his grandfather before him.718 Perry’s occupation changed over the period. In the 1841 census he was a 45 year old market gardener living in Fulham

715 One each from Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Kent. 716 Will of William Cock, 1847, TNA, PROB 11/1494/296; Census returns, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15. 717 Particulars and valuation of a leasehold for 21 years granted to Sarah Rivers, William Cock and Richard Perry, 1841, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328. 718 Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1793-1832, LMA, MR/PLT/4801-37. Sarah Rivers 1844, www.freebmd.org.uk, last accessed 21 January 2014. Both Sarah Rivers and Mrs Cock were daughters of another local gardener John Grinsteed, Will of John Grinsteed, 1817, TNA, PROB 11/1599/141. Elizabeth Cock was probably William’s widow. Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, Chiswick, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/689/3.

227

but by 1851 he was a house proprietor and had moved into a newly built, fashionable townhouse at St Peter’s Square in Hammersmith.719

Other gardeners also began to live partly on rentier income by buying houses or developing some of their land for building. Nurseryman Alexander Dancer had at least 10 houses in Fulham, some adjacent to his nursery ground, and Richard Steel had three cottages on his property in 1853 as well as his own ‘homestead … market garden ground and building land’.720 Richard Coomer Jnr, a gardener, was also listed in 1853 as ‘Owner and occupier, house, market garden land, 4 unfinished houses … 2 house[s] in course of erection and building ground’.721 A successful business could produce sufficient surplus capital to take advantage of the opportunity provided by their location to begin building houses and move to living on rentier income in later life. These were the sort of gardeners identified in chapter 3 who became a ‘gentleman’.

It must be remembered that the gardening industry was a dynamic process. Occupations altered over time while changes of circumstances, including the deaths of gardeners, realigned the freeholds and leaseholds of gardens. Between the 1841 and 1851 censuses 12 gardeners and nurserymen are known to have died; another 4 changed their occupational description from market gardener to landed proprietor; 2

719 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. St Peter’s Square: Conservation area character profile (1977), https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/section_attachments/st_peters_square_1_14_tcm21- 34541.pdf, last accessed 17 July 2017; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Peter's_Square,_London, last accessed 17 July 2017. 720 Maclure, Index to Maclure’s survey, HFA, F336.27 MAC. 721 Maclure, Index to Maclure’s survey, HFA, F336.27 MAC.

228

others became farmers and one had moved into the almshouses.722 Thus a third had left the occupation in 10 years. How death and inheritance affected garden businesses follows in the next chapter.

COVENANTS Covenants in leases for garden land explain further some of what was entailed in running a garden business, and the nature of the expenditure required. They addressed a variety of issues, including asserting the landlord’s rights over the property, outlining the responsibilities of the tenant, stipulation of conditions that would preserve the value of the fixed assets, and establishing the terms for rental payments.723 The most common covenants concerned repairs. Maintenance included keeping perimeters marked and secure, ditches and watercourses clean and scoured, and bridges, houses or other structures, in good repair, all usually at the expense of the gardener, but sometimes with an allowance from the landlord. In Fulham water management was important and some leases required the tenant to ‘throw up banks … to keep out and prevent the tide and floods’ from entering the premises.724 As time passed extra tasks were added, including looking after glazing and gutters, and by the nineteenth century the list had become lengthy.

Neglect could quickly reduce the value of the garden land and orchards so landlords required they be tended in a ‘husbandlike manner’. This phrase was found in 13

722 Census returns, 1841, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/689/10-15; Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5; Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, St Peter Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/690/6-7; Census returns, 1851, Middlesex, Kensington, Hammersmith Brompton, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/1469; Census returns, 1851, Middlesex, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/1470; Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471; Apportionment for the parish of Fulham, 1843, LMA, DL/TI/A/015/B; Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B. 723 British Records Association, Guideline 3: Interpreting deeds - Elements of a lease (July, 2004), www.britishrecordsassociation.org.uk/guidelines/guide3_print.doc, last accessed 4 April 2013. 724 Mrs Winder and Mr & Mrs Piper to Mr Fitch. Lease of premises at Parsons Green Fulham, 17 March 1807, HFA, DD/106/63. By 1866 the duty to cleanse tidal ditches was the responsibility of the Fulham district board of works, ‘Association of medical officers of health’, The Journal of Social Science, Vol. 1 (1866), p. 430.

229

leases but the general requirement was for the tenant to ensure good husbandry, in a ‘good gardenlike manner’ or to ‘the best of his … skill and power’.725 Some specifically referenced local practices such as ‘to the usual and accustomed modes of market gardening’.726 Soil fertility was central to intensive gardening methods and contributed to the value of the land. The fertility was maintained by the addition of large amounts of manure to enable a rotation cultivating multiple crops each year.727 From at least 1723 the gardener was obliged to ensure ‘frequent dunging and soyling’.728 Daniel Fitch had to ‘yearly … spread ten loads of good rotten dung manure or compost on and upon every acre of the said close or garden ground’.729 Generally the amount specified ranged from ten to twenty cart loads per acre.730 Garden businesses could not produce the large quantities of manure required and the early introduction of covenants specifying its use suggests that the cost, including transport costs from London, was outweighed by the resultant high productivity. A lease of 1780 specified a penalty for non-compliance ‘on pain of forfeiting … twenty shillings for every load of dung … which shall be neglected’.731

725 Lease, Robert Cary Esquire to Mr Edward Pope, 1760 HFA, DD/22/10; Lease, Mr Hunt to Mr Pope, 1765, HFA, DD/316/32 ; Lease, Adam Askew Esquire to Mrs Purser, 1782, HFA, DD/21/10; Lease, Miss Cary to Edmund Bryon, 1780, HFA, DD/106/56; Lease, Adam Askew Esq and Mrs Mary Cary to Mr Joseph Holden, 1797, HFA, DD/22/15; Lease, Mrs Winder and Mr and Mrs Piper to Mr [Daniel] Fitch 1807, HFA, DD/106/63; Lease, The Honorable William Moore to Mr John Forster,1809, HFA, DD/303/16/1; Lease, Charles James Lord Bishop of London to Charles Augustus Hoare and Mr William Wells, 1830, LMA, DL/D/L/113/MS12271 ; Lease, O. H. Sampayo to D. H. & W. Fitch, 1845, HFA, DD/106/66; Lease, Adam Askew Esquire to Joseph Brooks, 1786, HFA, DD/22/11. 726 Lease, Adam Askew Esq and Mrs Mary Cary to Mr Joseph Holden, 1797, HFA, DD/22/15; Lease, The Honorable William Moore to Mr John Forster, 1809, HFA, DD/303/16/1. 727 Unattributed, 'Economic history: Farm-gardening and market gardening', in P. Croot, ed., A history of the county of Middlesex: Vol. 12, Chelsea (2004), p. 150; W. Rubel, ‘But did the English eat their vegetables? A look at English kitchen gardens, and the vegetable cookery they imply (1650-1800)’, in S. Friedland, ed., Vegetables, Proceedings of the Oxford symposium on food and cookery, 2008 (Totnes, 2009), p. 188. 728 Lease Mr Robert Burton and others to Mr John Shaw, 1723, HFA, DD/1052/77. One cart load was about equivalent to c.2.5 tons of manure, Brown, The market gardens of Barnes and Mortlake, p. 9. 729 Lease, Mr Winder and Mr and Mrs Piper to Mr Fitch, 1807, HFA, DD/106/63. 730 Lease, Mr Richard Fisher to Mr John Salter Senior and Mr John Salter Junior, 1839, HFA, DD/21/12; Lease, John Lane Esquire to Mr George Dobson,1818, HFA, DD/216/62; Lease, Mr Winder and Mr and Mrs Piper to Mr Fitch, 1807, HFA, DD/106/63. 731 Lease, Miss Carys to Edmund Bryon, 1780, HFA, DD/106/56.

230

Garden ground was also valuable for the resources beneath the topsoil and covenants protected these assets. Brick production in Fulham was taking place from at least the seventeenth century and a lease of 1723 said that the tenant ‘may not … sell take or carry of[f] or convert … any of the brick earth clay gravel or sand which may be found upon the … premises’.732 By 1780 the prohibition was reinforced by a fine of ‘one hundred pounds for every foot of land so dug’.733 Such a high penalty indicates the value placed on the resource.

The fruit or nut trees were another valuable commodity; trees were a fixed asset and the property of the landlord, but their produce belonged to the gardener. Typical covenants included the need to ‘cherish prune and preserve … the fruit trees’ and the requirement to replace any which ‘happen to dye decay or become barren and fruitless’.734 Anthony Heck, a landlord in 1783, reserved for himself ‘all manner of timber trees and all other trees likely to be timber and saplings … and also all wall fruit trees and standard fruit trees’, the wide-ranging definition possibly being an attempt to clarify the vagaries of the law relating to what constituted a tree.735 At the end of his lease Thomas Gibson had to leave 320 standard fruit trees, the same number as in the orchard in 1702, having replaced any that had decayed during his 21 year tenancy.736

732 Chiz Harward, MoLAS, Hammersmith and Fulham, 81-88 Fulham High Street (FH103), TQ 3429 7605, evaluation (2003), http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/siteSummariesDetailsAll.asp?year=summaries2003&borough=Hamm ersmith%20and%20Fulham, last accessed 1 October 2011; Lease, Mr Robert Burton and others to Mr John Shaw, 1723, HFA, DD/1052/77. 733 Lease, Miss Carys to Edmund Bryon, 1780, HFA, DD/106/56. 734 Lease, Robert Cary Esquire to Mr Edward Pope, 1760 HFA, DD/22/10. 735 Lease, Anthony Heck Esq. to Mrs Elizabeth Rench, 1783, HFA DD/106/57; The proceedings of the Old Bailey, trial of Richard Burton, 1785, (t17851214-116), last accessed 28 July 2010. This case revolves around the legal definition of whether a yew was a tree or a bush, a tree being ‘timber’ and the landlord’s property, a bush was not and therefore the tenant’s property. There is still an ongoing discussion about the distinction between a tree and a shrub. Paul Smith, scientist at Kew gardens, Inside Science, BBC Radio 4, 6 April 2017. 736 Lease, Lord Bishop of London to Thomas Gibson, 1702, LMA, DL/D/L/082/MS12242.

231

Another restriction aimed at protecting the landlord’s investment prevented conversion to another use, such as meadow or arable. The wording could be precise; Stephen Moore specified the ground should be ‘market garden ground only and not for the purpose of tillage … [or] corn grain hay grass clover or seeds except garden seeds.’737 This restriction could have limited a gardener’s choices about production, particularly if he wanted to exploit a new market, for example with piggeries.

Fire insurance, the ultimate protection for property, was a late introduction to leases. The earliest mention found was in 1783 indicating that the tenant should insure the property ‘from loss or damage by fire for the sum of six hundred pounds’, the landlord prescribing the sum insured.738 Payment was usually made by the tenant and some were required to present the current policy, or the receipt for the premium, with the rent payment.739 There must have been some fire risk as Charles Bagley had his own fire engine, or perhaps this was another sideline.740

The consequences of breaking the requirements of the lease, such as defaulting on the rent or not complying with the covenants, were that after a specified time, usually 21 days, the landlord could enter and repossess the property and the lease became void.741 One tenant, Joseph Holden, pre-empted the inevitable and surrendered the lease, being ‘unable to pay the rent within reserved and has not performed several of the covenants within contained’.742 This was one of three leases that he had from different landlords and he defaulted on the property with the smallest acreage, perhaps to ease his costs while retaining as much land as possible.743 The problem facing the landlord in deciding to repossess was not just the loss of rental income but

737 Lease, The Honorable William Moore to Mr John Forster, 1809, HFA, DD/303/16/1. 738 Lease, Anthony Heck Esq. to Mrs Elizabeth Rench, 1783, HFA DD/106/57. 739 Lease, Stephen Moore Esquire to Mr Robert Goldring, 1828, HFA, DD/303/15. 740 Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, (September 21, 1872) p. 1269. 741 Lease, Lord Bishop of London to Thomas Gibson, 1708, LMA, DL/D/L/082/MS12242; Lease John Lane to George Dobson, 1818, HFA, DD/216/62. 742 Lease, Adam Askew Esq and Mrs Mary Cary to Mr Joseph Holden, 1797, HFA, DD/22/15. 743 A survey and valuation of all the lands and buildings within the hamlet of Hammersmith in the county of Middlesex, 1793, HFA, PAH/1/157.

232

the rapid deterioration of untended land and the potential for a season’s cropping to be missed, reducing the rent that the landlord could charge a new tenant in the first year. In later years a resumption clause specified the notice period for the land to be given up when it was required for building purposes. Atherall traced the spread of urban London through the inclusion of such clauses. As urbanisation approached this became increasingly relevant and the first resumption clause he found for Hammersmith was in an 1835 lease.744

Compliance with covenants for keeping the soil fertile and using good husbandry were generally in the interests of gardeners, but when times were hard some of them were ignored. Although the seizure of land for non-compliance with covenants was a powerful penalty some gardeners chose to disregard them and risk discovery. Disputes involved the quality of fruit trees, the maintenance of boundaries, encroachment onto other people’s property, and not keeping ditches clean.745 The solution was that the tenant rectified the problem within a specified term or paid a penalty.746 Although covenants give the appearance of control by the landlord the extent of enforcement is not clear, and the benevolence of the bishop has been demonstrated. Possibly the payment of a fine could be a sufficient resolution, although the example of Joseph Holden indicates the ultimate penalty was the partial loss of a business.

CONCLUSION The operation of the bishop’s estate has been shown to be similar to the practices of other ecclesiastical landlords found by Clay but the paternalism of some of the bishops of London may have given more concessions to lessors than Clay discovered on other estates. Beneficial leases were retained into the nineteenth century and the modernisation that took place was in the form of revised and updated economic rents

744 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, pp. 28-31. 745 H. Miles, Extracts from court rolls 1686-1752 (1959), H352.01 MAN. 746 C. Clay, ‘Lifeleasehold in the western counties of England, 1650-1750’, AgHR, 27:1 (1981), p. 93; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 187.

233

from 1790 onwards.747 This increased revenue but it is questionable whether it matched the rental level of private landlords. Prior to these increases the low cost made garden land a sound investment. Insufficient information, particularly for acreages and the practice of sub-letting, has made the construction of a good series of rents impractical. Where rents paid by gardeners can be calculated the highest were found in private leases but reasonable comparisons over a long period remain elusive.

Trends in land ownership in general agriculture, both the presence of large landholdings and the purchase of land by small investors, can be seen in garden land. The results are in line with Paul Carter’s findings that Middlesex did not have dominant landlords owning all or most of the parish.748 There were a few large landowners in Fulham and Hammersmith, especially the bishop of London, but not on the same scale as in other counties, although a broader pattern of large landholdings scattered across several parishes could be obscured, as seen in the bishop of London’s holdings.749 Absentee landlords have been found, but the proximity of London meant that a large majority of landlords lived in the parish or within a few miles. Many landlords owning one or two acres were people of independent means and professionals, or those with an interest in developing the land, including brickmakers and builders. The evidence suggests it would be beneficial to examine the tithe schedules or land tax from other parishes for evidence of wider landholding. This applies equally to gardeners leasing land. For example, William Dancer’s will itemised his garden land in Mortlake and Chiswick that he had inherited from his brother, also land in Brentford, in addition to his land in Fulham.750 For much of the eighteenth century there is insufficient evidence to draw

747 The major changes in church finance introduced in the mid-nineteenth century have not been considered here although they do not appear to have had any effect. 748 Carter, Enclosure resistance in Middlesex, 1656-1889, pp. 15, 63. 749 The diocesan court baron books covering Fulham also included estates at the manors of Acton, Drayton, Finchley, Ealing, Greenford and Hanwell, 1681-1847, LMA, DL/D/B/004/MS10466. 750 Will of William Dancer, 1832, TNA, PROB 11/1795/267.

234

firm conclusions and any changes in the trends in landholding would benefit greatly from research in the Middlesex deeds registry.751

Previous studies have approached the development of commercial gardening as a linear process towards greater specialisation. In this chapter a more nuanced picture has emerged showing the variations between businesses and particularly their diversity of production. By 1843/5 there were businesses that did not specialise totally in gardening and were more varied in their production than might be expected. Gardens had diversified in response to demand, and perhaps better financial returns, with piggeries, fodder production and pasturing cattle. The discussion of dual occupations in chapter 3 also showed that some provided services. These included the Wilcox family acting as proto-vets to neighbours’ livestock; the Rough family carts being hired by the parish to help with moving earth; and Charles Bagley probably provided the parish with the use of his fire-engine.752

Gardening was still taking place on strips of land in the Fulham open fields: farming- gardening continued in Fulham into the nineteenth century, while some farmers in Hammersmith had a small acreage of gardening as part of a large traditional farm, such as Robert Pain who had 360 aces of arable and grassland and 4 acres of garden land in 1845.753 Other gardeners had taken advantage of being landholders in a period of urban expansion and were developing houses and receiving rentier income. There is insufficient information to trace these changes in detail; each individual gardener would have followed their own path, depending on how they read the market, their own skills, the location and quality of their ground and the capital investment required. More than 250 years after the transition from agriculture to specialised gardening began the composition of garden businesses showed remarkable variation.

751 The names in the gardeners’ database now form a good basis for this search. 752 John Wilcox, Unpublished Depositions (1786-97), TNA C 24/2452; Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, (September 21, 1872) p. 1269. 753 Apportionment for the parish of Hammersmith, 1845, LMA, DL/TI/A/020/B.

235

Another variable in garden structure was tenure. Gardens were frequently made up of a mixture of tenures with very few holding freehold land in the tithe surveys. In Fulham and Hammersmith, as elsewhere, most gardeners relied entirely on renting land. Businesses often had several landlords comprising a mixture of family members, other gardeners or one or more other landlords from a range of backgrounds. In turn gardeners rented out some of their freehold land, or sub-let their leasehold land, to other gardeners. From the early nineteenth century the garden businesses came under pressure from the increasing air pollution, competition for land, economic downturns, or from rail transport bringing cheaper produce to London.754 Some garden businesses failed while others partially or wholly moved out of Fulham and Hammersmith, renting garden plots in districts with cheaper land.755

Atherall suggests ‘it may well be that each piece of land responded uniquely to any given state of the property market’.756 The results in this study show the variation in the response of garden business owners to the opportunities presented by changing demand and pressures from land competition could depend on several factors including tenure, wealth, longevity of the business, the point in the lifecycle when a business owner had to make a decision, and their skill. Yet the overall diminution of the industry in Hammersmith first does suggest that the convergence of individual responses to events was towards urban development and were probably driven primarily by landlords.

754 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, Introduction (unpaginted); E. Willson, ‘Farming, market and nursery gardening’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith, p. 89; J. O’Donoghue and L. Goulding, ‘Consumer price inflation since 1700’, Economic Trends, 604 (2004), 38-46; R. Webber, The early horticulturalists (Newton Abbot, 1968), pp. 24-5, 140. 755 William Wilcox, London Gazette, 18185 (1825), p. 1914; John Millett, London Gazette, 19230 (1835), p. 92; William Millett, London Gazette, 18543, (1820), p. 150; William Dancer, Gazette, 19116 (1834), p. 20; George Sendall, London Gazette, 17785 (1822), p. 173; Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener, 34 (28 February 1878), p. 166; Rough family papers, Private collection; E. Willson, ‘Nursery gardens’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Fulham, p. 241. Business failures are discussed in chapter 5. 756 Atherall, The displacement of market gardening, p. 2.

236

The amounts of freehold or leasehold land held by gardeners places them within the middling sort or middle class. Brown demonstrated how ‘new men of wealth’ integrated the upper middle class into landed society by purchasing estates of 1,000 acres or more between 1780 and 1879.757 The purchase of land in market gardens, although not necessarily at low prices, shows the opposite end of the investment spectrum where small acreages could generate a relatively large rental income.758 It can be argued that garden land did not give investors the same social status as other property, but it produced a high return. The extent to which gardeners also shared in the accumulation of wealth is the subject of the next chapter.

757 D. Brown, ‘New men of wealth and the purchase of land in Great Britain and Ireland, 1780 to 1879’, AgHR, 63:2, (2015), pp. 286-310. 758 G. Clark, ‘Commons sense: Common property rights, efficiency and institutional change’, Journal of Economic History, 58:1(1998), pp. 87-8.

237

238

CHAPTER 5

THE BUSINESS OF GARDENING

INTRODUCTION Gardening as a branch of commerce, may, in general, be considered as of small importance, yet, in the neighbourhood of London, from its immense and constant consumption of vegetables and fruit, it has become a most profitable as well as an important pursuit. (Faulkner, 1813)759

As early as 1813 Thomas Faulkner in his history of Fulham highlighted the lack of recognition given to the commercial gardening industry despite its contribution to the economy. Commercial gardens can be studied from a business perspective, but the absence of surviving business accounts has constrained research.760 Without accounts it is difficult to assess directly the profitability of gardening and this has been seen as a significant obstacle by historians.761 Only a few studies have taken a business perspective on gardening, such as David Marsh’s study of gardens in Middlesex, and Malcolm Thick’s analysis of the 107 acres at Neat House gardens, Pimlico, at the end of the early modern period, and my own microhistory of a small garden business

759 T. Faulkner, An historical and topographical account of the parish of Fulham including the hamlet of Hammersmith (1813), p. 13. 760 J. Drake, Wood and Ingram, A Huntingdon nursery, 1742-1950 (Huntingdon, 2008), pp. 1-18. This includes lists of plant sales from the company ledgers and their customers, but without summaries of costs and sales. 761 D. Marsh, The gardens and gardeners of later Stuart London, unpublished PhD thesis, University of London (2004), p. 447; J. Matheson, Common ground: horticulture and the cultivation pf open space in the East End of London, 1840-1900, unpublished PhD thesis, The Open University (2010), pp. 86, 95; M. Thick, ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’ in J. Thirsk, ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales, Vol. 5, 1640-1750:II Agrarian change (Cambridge, 1985), p. 521; M. Thick, The Neat House gardens: early market gardening around London (Totnes, 1998), pp. 12-13, 113, 123-4; E. Willson, West London nursery gardens: the nursery gardens of Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith, Kensington and a part of Westminster, founded before 1900 (1982), pp. 3-5, 72-4; J. Uings, Gardens and gardening in a fast-changing urban environment: Manchester 1750-1850, unpublished PhD thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University (2013), pp. 30, 309; J. Harvey, Early nurserymen (Chichester, 1974), pp. 2, 3; B. Rough, The operation of a small business in Fulham, London, c1760-1800, unpublished MSt, dissertation, University of Cambridge (2010); R. C. Greener, The rise of the professional gardener in nineteenth-century Devon: A social and economic history, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Exeter (2009), pp. 21-3.

239

in Fulham at the end of the eighteenth century.762 Malcolm Thick considers that ‘The profits to be made in London markets greatly stimulated gardening in the London suburbs in the early seventeenth century ... [in] the new gardens of Fulham, Chelsea and Bermondsey’.763 Marsh argues that while profitability cannot be measured without accounts it can be inferred from primary sources giving the wealth of gardeners, and Eleanor Willson pointed to the usefulness of evidence from bankruptcies in demonstrating how nurserymen carried on their trade.764

The three parts of this chapter deal with different aspects of garden businesses. The wealth of gardeners is discussed in part 1 as a proxy measure for business profitability. Part 2 shows how, for a few, gardening resulted in bankruptcy or insolvency, with the case study of John Rutt highlighting how this affected his family and business. In part 3 the succession strategies employed to transfer wealth, the perpetuation of businesses, and creation of garden dynasties are discussed. Sources previously unused for considering gardening businesses, including fire insurance policies, Bank of England stock accounts and will extracts, and lists of insolvencies and bankruptcies in the London Gazette, nominally linked to other sources, add a new quantitative view of the financial aspects of gardening businesses, enhanced by qualitative sources establishing the context.

Gardeners are shown to have had a wide range of wealth levels that increased over time, and place employers as part of the middling sort. Very few gardeners became insolvent or bankrupt over the period except in the difficult economic years in the early nineteenth century. Businesses were left principally to wives and sons, providing a commercial advantage to those born into a gardening family business through inheriting fixed and moveable assets, land and improved soil quality.

762 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners; Thick, The Neat House, pp. 131, 137-8, 145; Rough, The operation of a small business. 763 M. Thick, ‘Garden seeds in England before the eighteenth century: I. Seed growing’, AgHR, 38:1 (1990), pp. 60-1. 764 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, pp. 447, 450-2; Willson, West London nursery gardens, p. 6.

240

Succession strategies were aimed at perpetuating the family business. Given the expansion of the industry over the 180 years under examination, it is difficult to associate the presence of dynasties with causing economic stagnation as business historians have for some industries, particularly those requiring large capital investment, and is more supportive of the view that dynasties need not be detrimental to expansion or success.765

PART 1, THE WEALTH OF GARDENERS

Oh, the incredible profit by digging of Ground! … in some seasons, Gardens feed more poor people than the Field. (Thomas Fuller, 1662)766

This study has demonstrated in chapters 3 and 4 that by the mid-eighteenth century there were gardeners in Fulham who were part of the middling sort and by the mid- nineteenth century a few garden businesses employed large numbers of workers. At the end of the eighteenth century Adam Smith mentioned the high rent paid for garden land and the skill of the gardeners in the Wealth of nations.767 He thought they had ‘great ingenuity’ but that their circumstances were ‘generally mean, and always moderate’, and attributed their purported level of profitability to inappropriate

765 C. Lorandini, ‘Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome: the Salvadori firm of Trento, 1660s- 1880s’, Business History, 57:7 (2015), 1005-19; M. Rose, ‘Beyond Buddenbrooks: The family firm and the management of succession in nineteenth century Britain’, in J. Brown and M. Rose, eds., Entrepreneurship, networks and modern business (Manchester, 1993), 127-41; R. Pearson and D. Richardson, ‘Business networking in the industrial revolution’, EcHR, 54:4 (2001), 657-79; P. Fernandez Perez, ‘Small firms and networks in capital intensive industries: the case of Spanish steel wire manufacturing’, Business History, 49:5, (2007), 606-36; M. Casson, ‘The economics of the family firm, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 47:1 (1999), 10-23; A. Colli, P. Fernandez Perez, P. and M. Rose, ‘National determinants of family firm development? Family firms in Britain, Spain and Italy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’, Enterprise and Society, 4:1 (2003), 28-64. 766 T. Fuller, The history of the worthies of England, Vol 2 (1811 edn., original 1662), p. 353. 767 A. Smith, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations Vol. 1 (4 vols., 4th edn., Paris, 1801), pp. 81, 237-8.

241

accounting methods.768 In contrast his contemporary, John Middleton, considered there was ‘ample proof’ of their profitability in Middlesex and Surrey.769 Middleton found in the late 1790s, that on 20 acres of poor garden land and as little as 5 acres of best garden in Middlesex, a gardener could earn as much as a farmer of 150 acres.770 The profitability of gardens is examined here using the wealth of gardeners as a proxy measure for profitability. The general histories of wealth by historians such as Peter Earle, Robert Morris, and David Green and Alistair Owens, provide a context in which to analyse, situate and compare the wealth of gardeners.

Earle examined the wealth of 375 citizens of London between 1660 and 1730 from inventories.771 He argues that people with wealth of £300 to £600 and an income of £50 a year could ‘live a comfortable middle-class life’. Those with wealth of £1,000 to £2,000 ‘represented the average of the London middle-classes’, while people with over £10,000 were ‘wealthy’.772 He proposed an investment cycle where young people were net borrowers but as age increased they became net lenders, the changeover beginning when a businessman reached around 40 years old, with investments increasing as he grew older.773 By the early eighteenth century, as the life expectancy of wealthier families increased, more people had time to accumulate surplus income.774 The investment strategies adopted by individuals were differentiated by the amount of their surplus capital. Between 1660 and 1730 people with under £1,000 predominantly held leases and loans; a third of real estate investment by London residents was in London and Middlesex, while those with

768 A. Smith, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations Vol. 1 (4 vols., 4th edn., Paris, 1801), pp. 81, 237-8. 769 Thick. The Neat House, p. 163, citing J. Middleton, View of the agriculture of Middlesex (1798). 770 P. Carter, Enclosure resistance in Middlesex, 1656-1889: A study of common right assertion, unpublished DPhil dissertation, Middlesex University (1998), p. 65. 771 P. Earle, The making of the English middle class: business, society and family life in London, 1660- 1730 (1989), pp. 394-5. 772 Ibid., p. 14. 773 Ibid., p. 144. 774 Ibid., pp. 144, 307, 310.

242

larger fortunes had more diversified portfolios and dominated investment in securities.775

Using transfers of businesses between 1830 and 1834 found in 374 wills or letters of administration in Leeds, Morris characterises wealth management as part of a complex series of choices for an individual and proposes a property cycle similar to Earle’s investment cycle.776 This depended on their aims, age, family circumstances and approach to financial risk taking. Their choices were made against a background of urban growth, an increasing range of investment opportunities and the economic cycle.777 Initially income was earned and money borrowed; then a phase occurred when debts had been paid but income was still earned, permitting any accumulated capital to be invested; and finally came dependence on unearned income with slower capital accumulation and a withdrawal from business in their early- to mid-50s.778 From 1720 there was a ‘fully developed stock market’; nevertheless, the ‘tradesman, builder and shopkeeper’ preferred investing locally, although those whose business interests provided a greater geographical reach and a wider knowledge base had a greater choice.779 Family and business networks were also important in providing information and support in order to avoid, or overcome, financial difficulties.780

David Green and Alistair Owens’s study of investment from 1870 to 1902 covers a later period than this study, nevertheless their categorisation of the wealth of businesses provide useful comparisons to evidence of gardeners’ wealth in the earlier nineteenth century. As prices fell slightly between 1830 and 1850, then rose by only

775 Ibid., pp. 146-52, 155. Earle made little mention of gardeners and none of his sample from livery companies came from the Gardeners’ Company. 776 R. Morris, Men, women and property in England, 1780-1870: a social and economic history of family strategies amongst the Leeds middle class (Cambridge, 2005), p. 79. 777 Ibid., chapter 3. 778 Ibid., pp. 148-9; D. Green and A. Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth: real estate and personal property ownership in England and Wales, 1870-1902’, EcHR, 66:3 (2013), p. 857. 779 N. Glaisyer, The culture of commerce in England, 1660-1720 (Cambridge, 2006), p. 3; Morris, Men, women and property, p. 370. 780 Morris, Men, women and property, pp. 369-74, 383.

243

10 per cent between 1850 and 1900, their categories provide a reasonable measure for wealth between 1830 and 1858.781 Green and Owens highlight the difficulty caused by categorising occupations by class, as one occupation could encompass a range of incomes.782 In 1900-01 probate valuations for 67 per cent of all estates were under £1,000, 7 per cent were over £10,000, and 1.1 per cent were over £50,000.783 They identified three middle-class strata in the nineteenth century: the highest rank of substantial employers left personal estate of £20,000 and over; a middle rank left at least £2,000 and were medium-sized employers, while the small employers left less than £2,000.784 Urban working-class housing became an attractive investment for producing rentier income.785 The investment strategies adopted by middling employers, and their levels of wealth found by these three historians can be compared to those of gardeners as an initial indication of the profitability of their businesses and their social position.

In this part each source is discussed and its contribution to the assessment of gardeners’ wealth is examined. Then three facets of wealth are examined: cash bequests in wills; investments given in wills and found in sources from the Bank of England; and property in wills and fire insurance policies. A case study of the Lee family of nurserymen demonstrates the exceptional financial rewards that gardening could provide, and finally, by linking these sources gives a view of the total wealth of a few gardeners. The findings give a preliminary indication of the changing proportion of gardeners over 180 years achieving the wealth of the middling sort.

781 J. O’Donoghue, L. Goulding and G. Allen, ‘Consumer price inflation since 1750, Office for National Statistics: Economic Trends, 604 (2004), p. 43. 782 Green and Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth’, pp. 849-50. 783 Ibid., pp. 848-9. 784 R. Trainor, Black Country élites: the exercise of authority in an industrialised area 1830–1900 (Oxford, 1993), pp. 387-9 cited in Green and Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth’, p. 850. 785 Green and Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth’, p. 851.

244

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES Information on the wealth of gardeners is constructed through linking evidence from several sources: 196 wills from 1680 to 1858; 77 fire insurance policies between 1777 and 1839, and 4 leases that include insurance policy specifications; 20 Bank of England 3 per cent consols’ accounts for 1761 to 1837 and 23 Bank of England will extracts dating from 1762 to 1843.786 The statistical findings are linked to qualitative evidence to provide more detail.787 The absence of probate inventories for all but four gardeners in Fulham and Hammersmith is a significant limitation to this analysis.

Wills Wills are the predominant source used. They can include bequests of cash, stocks and shares, and real and personal property including a garden business, but the amount of detail given varies considerably. A preliminary assessment of wills was given in chapter 3, part 3, and the general problems associated with analysing wills are well known, therefore reference here is made only to issues relevant to gardeners’ wealth.788 Wills give evidence of a person’s financial situation at the time of writing, and could be part of a longer process of property transfers that may not appear in the

786 Consistory court of London, 1809-34, LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; Commissary court of London, 1680-1820, LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; Prerogative court of Canterbury, 1651-1857, TNA, PROB 11; Sun Fire Office policies, 1777-1839, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/; Stock ledger: Consols £3%, BEA, AC27; Bank of England will extracts 1717-1845, Society of Genealogists, 96707. Will extracts from www.findmypast.co.uk/, last accessed 13 August 2017; Lease, Anthony Heck Esq. to Mrs Elizabeth Rench, 1783, HFA, DD/106/57; Lease, Adam Askew and Miss Cary to Joseph Brookes, 1803, HFA, DD/22/11; Lease, Mrs Winder and Mr and Mrs Piper to Mr Fitch, 1807, HFA, DD/106/63; Lease Stephen Moore Esquire to Mr Robert Bryan, 1828, HFA, DD/303/10. 787 Only 4 probate inventories exist for gardeners in this period. 788 See for example, K. Grannum and N. Taylor, Wills and probate records: a guide for family historians (2nd edn, 2009); T. Arkell. N. Evans and N. Goose eds., When death do us part: Understanding and interpreting the probate records of early modern England (Oxford, 2000); L. Bonfield, Devising, dying and dispute: probate litigation in early modern England (Farnham, 2012); R. Vann, ‘Wills and the family in an English town: Banbury, 1550-1800’, Journal of Family History, 4:4 (1979) 346-67.

245

will.789 The time interval between a will being written and proved is an indication of the currency of the information. Half the gardeners’ wills were proved within 12 months of being written, 36 per cent within 6 months, and 14 per cent within 1 month. These proportions fell over the period: between 1680 and 1799 55.7 per cent of wills were written and proved within 1 year, compared to 43.3 per cent after 1799, perhaps because people were living longer.

In Fulham, gardeners’ wills need to be considered in terms of the local custom of ultimogeniture for intestacy and this could have been a good reason for copyholders to keep their wills up-to-date.790 It stated that, ‘If a Man die seized of Copyhold Lands and have sons the youngest shall inherit if his father died without Will and if noe sons butt daughters they shall inherit as Coheires’.791 In such a situation the land could not be transferred until the youngest son (or daughter) reached the age of 21.792 The court rolls for Fulham in the late eighteenth century still upheld the youngest son inheriting; for example in 1789 William Roberts the ‘youngest son and customary heir [of] Elizabeth Roberts deceased’ surrendered property to the court.793 It was rare, however, for a gardener’s estate to be left in a will only to the youngest son, suggesting this was not the preferred form of inheritance.794

The major caveat for assessments of wealth in wills is the level of the testator’s debts owing and due. For a later period, 1870-1902, Green and Owens found that the

789 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 451; L. Bonfield, ‘Contrasting sources: Court rolls and settlements as evidence of hereditary transmission of land among small landowners in early modern England ’, University of Illinois Law Review, 3 (1984), pp. 640-1; Vann, ‘Wills and the family’, p. 347. 790 Bonfield, ‘Contrasting sources’, pp. 639-58; Morris, Men, women and property, p. 92. Ultimogeniture is also known as Borough English. 791 Manerium de Fulham, The antient Custom is as followeth presented by the Lords Jury Anno Domini 1685, HFA, DD/216/36. 792 Rough, The operation of a small business in Fulham, London, c1760-1800, unpublished MSt dissertation, University of Cambridge (2010), considers the consequences of such an inheritance, which required a mother to run the family business for 21 years as her son was unborn at the time she was widowed, and caused the older siblings to become resentful. 793 Court Baron, Fulham, 7th December 1789, LMA, DL/D/B/005/MS 10832/108. 794 Bonfield, ‘Contrasting sources’, p. 654.

246

smaller estates under £1,000 had the highest proportion of debt, amounting to 21.5 per cent of the estate, representing unfinished business in terms of ‘owing working capital to creditors or mortgages on premises’.795 For all estates up to £99,999 the average level of debt was 10.8 per cent, but the older a person was at the time of death, the less likely they were to have debts.796 Debts are difficult to access for gardeners but two inventories, both drawn up as a result of disputes over estate valuations one hundred years apart, show how debt could vary.

When John Ceney, primarily a Fulham nurseryman, died intestate in 1714, he was owing £201 but his customers and other tradesmen owed him £689.797 This places his debts at the level of Earle’s annual expenditure for the middling sort in early modern England and they were covered by what he was owed. A contrasting situation is found in the 1811 inventory of the estate of John Lewis, a Hammersmith gardener who had become a ‘gentlemen’ with rents from land and 54 properties. His will contained £7,000 in wealth, mainly in property, placing him in Green and Owens’s middle rank of the middle class. He owed £1,004, half of which was in connection with maintaining his property portfolio. Conversely he was owed £239, including £127 in rents from tenants, £96 on two loans he had made and £8.10s by Mr Holland for potatoes, probably indicating that he was still involved in some gardening.798 If all he was owed was collected and added to the cash and stock in his will, his debts and bequests would not have been covered entirely, unless capital items were sold, but the effect would be to reduce his wealth marginally. Lewis’s debts were covered by his wealth, and the credit he had been extended indicates that his creditor’s knowledge of his income from housing and land sustained his good reputation. The absence of probate inventories for Fulham gardeners, and the lack of

795 Green and Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth’, pp. 857, 868. 796 Ibid., pp. 857, 868. 797 Moore v. Ceney, Bill and three answers, 1727, TNA, C11/2405/1. 798 Will of John Lewis, 1807, TNA, PROB 11/1471/236; Exhibit: 1811/682. John Lewis of the hamlet of Hammersmith, Fulham, Middlesex. Probate inventory, or declaration, of the estate of the same, deceased, with account, TNA, PROB 31/1053/682.

247

evidence of debts due and owing, render the findings of wealth from wills indicative rather than definitive.

Bank of England accounts and will extracts Two sources from the Bank of England - 3 per cent consols’ accounts and will extracts - are used to validate and elaborate on the government securities mentioned in wills.799 All documents relating to gardeners, especially wills, were searched for evidence of Bank of England stock accounts and therefore those with holdings at the end of life are over-represented, and omit any investments that were transferred or liquidated previously.800 Several government securities were mentioned in wills but 3 per cent consols were chosen for analysis as they were by far the most frequent, dating from 1752. The accounts give the name, address and occupation of the account holder, list the transaction dates, the names of the buyers or sellers, and the nominal amount of stock involved.801 A trial run of searching an entire index volume for any occurrence of Fulham and Hammersmith gardeners was made in the 1743-60 index for surnames I-Z. It produced a total of six gardeners in London and the Home Counties but none for Fulham and Hammersmith.802 This proved far too time consuming and searching has been limited to finding gardeners known from their wills to hold stock, and thus is a selection and not a comprehensive list.803 Having identified the appropriate account ledgers a problem was encountered as the Bank of England archive will only provide ten account ledgers per day. Thus only 20 accounts, of which 10 were traced over the period of more than one ledger, are used in this analysis as an example of their contribution as a source and to draw indicative

799 Stock ledger: Consols £3%, BEA, AC27; Bank of England will extracts, 1717-1845, Society of Genealogists, 96707. 800 An example of transfers in the Harwood family is given in chapter 5, p. 305. 801 Identifying gardeners’ accounts is problematic as the surname indexes have not been digitised. Complexities arise from the idiosyncratic alphabetic order used in the indexes that takes no account of vowels, and names with the same underlying configuration of consonants are mixed together, for example Llewellyn, catalogued as ‘Le’ is followed by ‘Lea/Lee’. 802 Stock ledger index £3% annuities, I-Z, 5 Dec. 1743- 11 Aug. 1760, BEA, AC27/146. 803 A few gardeners’ names were also found by happenstance when searching for another name.in ledgers. The bulk of ledgers grew (and their weight) as consols increased in popularity and the time taken to search entire indexes would have increased exponentially.

248

conclusions. Another 34 accounts were located in the indexes dating from 1764 to 1858, but could not be followed up.804 This is not a complete enumeration of gardeners with government securities, as other securities, including 3% reduced, 4% annuities and navy stock, appear in the wills. Without the archive’s daily quota this would be a productive resource for identifying investments.

The investments in wills should be read in conjunction with the Bank of England will extracts that survive from 1717 to 1845, although these are incomplete.805 The bank copied extracts from wills relating to government securities. Their main function was to provide a market value of all extant holdings for probate valuation and to identify those to whom the bank was required to distribute any funds, to retain funds until a minority ended or marriage occurred, or to provide an annuity. They also valued accounts for other government securities which were held but were not mentioned in the will, and these were passed to the control of the executors. Extracts give the testator’s name, occupation, residence and details of the investments. Twenty-three will extracts for Fulham and Hammersmith gardeners have been found which represents only a third of gardeners’ wills mentioning securities.806 This could be due to the investments being liquidated before death and this possibility was examined by cross checking with those holding Bank of England consols’ accounts. Nine of the consols’ accounts that were still open when the will was proved did not have a corresponding will extract available, suggesting that there are significant gaps in this source. Thus the total wealth of some gardeners is underestimated and this is discussed later in this part.

804 Several contained partnerships with names not found previously and could provide additional insights if the partner was shown to have been a non-gardening investor in the business. 805 The Society of Genealogists obtained the folios from the Bank of England in 1985. In a conversation with the society’s librarian, 7 December 2014, he explained that some were received in poor condition and leaves may have been lost in the past. 806 Bank of England will extracts, 1717-1845, SoG, 96707. Another will including government stocks preceded the date when will extracts began.

249

An important function of the will extracts and consols’ accounts is to validate the amount of government securities given in a will and to obtain a valuation. The extracts provide an accurate figure of the nominal amount (and market value) of securities at the date of death which can be compared to the nominal amount given in the will. In 6 wills the nominal amount shown was greater than in the will extract, in 6 the amount was less, and in 5 it was identical (figure 5.1).807 The difference ranged from one will where the principal given was £10,000 greater than in the will extract, to one that was £5,833 less. Figure 5.1 shows clearly that the accuracy diminished as the time increased between the will being written and proved.

Although this analysis is based on a small sample it suggests that gardeners were actively managing their accounts and that where the will was written more than a year before probate the amount of government securities should be treated with caution. There is no evidence to suggest that the nominal amounts mentioned in the will were not owned at some point in the testator’s lifetime, and where there is no corresponding will extract this is the measure of wealth used.

807 For the will extracts where an amount was specified in the will.

250

Figure 5.1 Effect of the time between a will being written and proven on the difference between the amounts of investments given in wills and in will extracts of gardeners, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1762-1843.808

6 5 4 3

Number 2 1 0 Same amount £500 & less Over £500 Difference between will and will extract amount

12m or less over 1 year

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; SoG, 96707.

Insurance Property is mentioned in wills, usually without a valuation, but a measure of worth is found in fire insurance policies. Previous studies have used data from insurance policies. For example, Leonard Schwarz and L. Jones used them to compare wealth between individuals in ten occupations (but not gardeners) in London in 1780, while David Stead considered them in connection with risk management in English agriculture for the period 1750-1850.809 By the late eighteenth century business insurance was well established and Schwarz and Jones found that the ‘habit of insurance was far more widespread [in London] than anywhere else’.810 The Sun Fire

808 n=17 809 L. Schwarz and L. Jones, ‘Wealth, occupation and insurance in the late eighteenth century, the policy registers of the Sun Fire Office’, EcHR, 36:3 (1983), 365-73. D. Stead, ‘Risk and risk management in English agriculture, c. 1750-1850’, EcHR, 57:2 (2004), 334-61. 810 Schwarz and Jones, ‘Wealth, occupations and insurance’, p. 367.

251

Office was the largest company in 1780 insuring property, predominantly in London, until the 1820s.811 Policies provide details of the real and personal property insured, its location and the sum insured for each piece or group of items, often with the names of tenants if a building was rented out. Property could be domestic or commercial, although a distinction was often not made. This study uses Sun Fire Office policies from 1777 to 1839 as their policy registers in this period have been digitised. Some gardeners, however, may have chosen another company such as the Phoenix, where policy indexes no longer exist.812 Focussing on the policies of the largest insurer should provide a representative sample.

The 77 policies, taken out by 44 individual gardeners, including 3 women, and two partnerships, in Fulham and Hammersmith, range in total sums insured from £200 to £6,350.813 They provide valuations which were made by surveyors visiting the property, and useful information about business premises, buildings held as investments and, for some families, a longitudinal view of the business. Twenty- seven individuals with policies can be linked to a will and a further five have a probate valuation dated after 1858. For the 17 gardeners who had a policy but no corresponding will they are important evidence about their property and the scale of their businesses.814 The absence of probate inventories for gardeners is partly overcome by the information given in insurance policies. The sums insured for real and personal property are an indication of comparative wealth between gardeners. Robin Pearson considers that the sums insured represented approximately 70 per cent

811 R. Pearson, Insuring the industrial revolution: fire insurance in Great Britain, 1700-1850 (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 9, 107; idem, ‘Moral hazard and the assessment of insurance risk in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Britain’, Business History Review, 76 (2002), p. 19. 812 Sun Fire Office Policies, LMA CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/. The Phoenix policies still exist but not the indexes. Personal communication, December 2014, with the manuscripts’ librarian, Cambridge University Library, where the Phoenix policies are kept. 813 Lease, Anthony Heck Esq. to Mrs Elizabeth Rench, 1783, HFA, DD/106/57; Lease, Adam Askew and Miss Cary to Joseph Brookes, 1803, HFA, DD/22/11; Lease, Mrs Winder and Mr and Mrs Piper to Mr Fitch, 1807, HFA, DD/106/63; Lease, Stephen Moore Esquire to Mr Robert Bryan, 1828, HFA, DD/303/10. 814 The dates for insurance policies may not coincide with the death of the gardener so the data are not strictly comparable with that from the wills. Five policy holders had wills proved after 1858.

252

of the property value in the eighteenth century and thus when used as a proxy for property values they are an underestimate.815

The property insured gives a view of the difference in the size and nature of the businesses. Commercial gardens possessed a variety of buildings ranging from warehouses, cart houses and stables, which were commonplace in policies, to packing sheds, binding houses and, less frequently, storage built to store specific crops such as an onion loft or a fruit house, with the occasional greenhouse.816 Another use of insurance can be seen in John Millett’s 1778 policy. As he had obtained a loan by mortgaging his premises to another gardener he took out a policy on the premises to cover repayment in case of loss by fire.817

The absence of land values are a limitation of the policies. As land was not a fire risk it was not insured, therefore the policies do not give a total view of a gardener’s property. Policies refer to ‘stock and utensils’ being insured but the meaning of stock in the context of gardeners is unclear. Stead argues that it refers to ‘produce and implements’ on farms.818 William Matyear Jnr.’s policy in 1778 indicated that he kept stock and utensils in his dwelling house suggesting that the stock was not growing crops or livestock but could include seeds, or stored fruit.819 In 1830 half of British farmers insured stock against fire, but may have insured it for only one third of its value as barns and stock were dispersed around farmland, therefore reducing risk.820 For the small garden acreages there was greater risk, although many consisted of several plots of land that could be dispersed. This emphasises Pearson’s view that the sum insured could undervalue the property.

815 Pearson, Insuring the industrial revolution, pp. 310, 315. 816 Sun Fire Office policies, 1777-1839, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/; A survey and valuation of all the lands and buildings within the hamlet of Hammersmith, Middlesex, 1793, HFA, PAH/1/157. 817 John Millett, Sun Fire Office, 1778, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/263/395496. 818 Stead, ‘Risk and risk management’, p. 339. 819 William Matyear Jnr., Sun Fire Office, 1778, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/ 269/403250. 820 Stead, ‘Risk and risk management’, pp. 340-1.

253

The dates of policies refer to the issue date and policies could continue unchanged for several years with only a brief annotation for an annual renewal.821 Where a business was passed on within a family, each successive individual who had a policy is included in the dataset. If an individual had policies for several years the highest sum insured has been used. The sum insured could cover several properties bundled together. For instance, John Millett insured his ‘Carthouse Lofthouse Pump house & Workshop’ for £70 in 1778.822 In the policies it is not always possible to isolate business property from the gardener’s home. As we have seen for William Matyear, home and business premises could be one and the same, and are valued as one item in some policies, therefore the sum insured for business premises here includes the gardener’s own dwelling.

The four sources discussed here do not provide information about all types of wealth; in particular, they omit the value of land and leases that gardeners held. Nor do they provide information about all gardeners. Wills represent business owners but owners of small businesses may not have made a will, particularly in earlier periods when there are fewer wills. For a few individuals, however, Bank of England accounts and will extracts, and insurance policies offer a dynamic view that can amend a misleading interpretation given by a will. The results are an indicative, not an absolute measure of wealth, but permit comparison between gardeners and between the wealth of gardeners and the middling sort presented in other studies.

WEALTH IN CASH, STOCKS AND SHARES, AND PROPERTY During the early and mid-eighteenth century there was a gradual increase in the incidence of gardeners’ wills, peaking between 1780 and 1809 (figure 5.2). As the census shows that the number of employers continued to rise between 1841 and 1861, the mid-nineteenth century decline in wills proven is difficult to explain, but could represent more dying intestate, or people living longer, including some who

821 LMA, Information leaflet number 48: Fire insurance records, (2010). 822 John Millett, Sun Fire Office, 1778, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/263/395496.

254

retired and/or moved away. Not all wills are useful for considering wealth as in 57 no monetary value was attached to any items or bequests. This type of will occurred throughout the whole period.

Figure 5.2 Distribution of all gardeners’ wills, with and without wealth mentioned, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194.

Overall, land, houses or other real estate (referred to as ‘property’) were mentioned in 61 per cent of wills, 55 per cent gave an amount of cash and 36 per cent included investments in government securities or shares. The changing incidence of these three elements over four time periods is summarised in figure 5.3.823 Shares first appeared after 1700 and the mix of assets became more equal over time.

823 This indicates the presence of an asset and not the relative values Personal property, such as clothing, jewellery, and household goods and furniture will not form part of the analysis.

255

Figure 5.3 Incidence of assets in gardeners’ wills by date proved, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194.

Seven combinations of assets were possible in a will and the most frequent were ‘cash and property’ or ‘property only’, especially in early wills. From 1750 all possible combinations occurred and their changing composition is given in figure 5.4. Government securities and shares became increasingly popular occurring in 23 per cent of portfolios in 1750-99, rising to 51 per cent in 1800-58.824 A similar distribution of assets in wills has also been found by Earle. 825 This chapter now turns to discussing separately the changes in each type of wealth.

824 These were predominantly government securities but are referred to as ‘Shares’ in the tables and figures. 825 Earle, The making of the English middle class, p. 147.

256

Figure 5.4 Asset portfolios in gardeners’ wills, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.826

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194.

Cash in wills Ready money was required in a garden business as it was simple and reliable. Unsurprisingly, no one assigned a value to the cash they expected to leave in their will. Testators referred to ‘ready money’, ‘notes in hand’ or ‘bills’; some, such as Edward Lee, indicated they had money in a savings bank, but did not give a balance, and cash could be part of a list of items forming the rest and residue. Few were as specific about their ready money as Richard Howells who referred to ‘all monies in my house belonging to me’.827 There were details concerning the time when cash bequests should be paid, varying from ‘within one month for mourning’, to ‘within six months’, or ‘as soon as convenient after my decease’. James Lee put his business interests before payment of cash bequests, stating that they should be paid ‘whence it

826 n=139. 827 Will of Richard Howells, 1822, PROB 11/1660/222.

257

can be spared out of my personal estate without prejudice to the carrying on of my business’.828

It is not so clear where the cash to pay the bequests was to come from. Whether testators, knowing death was close, had already made it available through selling assets, taking dividends as cash sums or retaining profits from the business as cash. George Matyear was unusual as he stated he had two insurance policies on his life which were to provide his cash bequests.829 Some mentioned using the dividends from stock to pay cash legacies, others suggested that goods could be sold, or listed property and goods that should not be sold for this purpose. Testators also included instructions for payment that were contingent upon legatees using future rental income from property, or profits from the business, to pay other beneficiaries’ legacies in cash. It is evident that some cash bequests were to be made from liquidating securities or property. Thus the following account of cash bequests may be double-counting some wealth, although it seems likely that ready money would form part of the unvalued rest and residue.

Cash bequests, shown in table 5.1, predominated in early wills but were present throughout the period. They occurred in 107 wills totalling from 1s to £43,000, but they were mainly small amounts.830 Testators mentioning only cash (24) may have had other assets that were distributed previously. Over the period the range of cash amounts widened: bequests totalling £500 and over first appeared in 1758 but are found especially in the nineteenth century. A few wills were cash rich and three included sums over £2,000.831

828 Will of James Lee, 1824, PROB 11/1688/1160. 829 Will of George Matyear, 1832, PROB 11/1796/38. 830 The categories in the table are based on those used by Marsh for a garden labourer’s annual wage of £22, Gregory King’s 1688 annual expenditure of a shopkeeper or trader of £42 15s 0d per annum and Earle’s measure of the expenditure of a middling family around the turn of the eighteenth century of £200, in order to permit comparison with his findings. Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 459. 831 Will of Thomas Eayres, 1772, TNA, PROB 11/981/265; Will of George Matyear, 1832 TNA, PROB 11/1796/38; Will of James Lee, 1824 TNA, PROB 11/1688/160.

258

Table 5.1 Number of cash bequests in gardeners’ wills, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. 1680-99 1700-49 1750-99 1800-58

Cash amount No. % No. % No. % No. % Under £1 - - 9 39.1 8 20.0 1 2.4 £1- £22 2 100 6 26.1 16 40.0 11 26.2 £23- £43 - - 1 4.3 3 7.5 6 14.3 £44- £200 - - 6 26.1 7 17.5 11 26.2 £201- £499 - - 1 4.3 4 10.0 6 14.3 £500-£999 - - - - 1 2.5 5 11.9 £1,000 & - - - - 1 2.5 2 5.8 over Total 2 - 23 - 40 - 42 - Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194.

The smallest bequests, under £1, were a feature of eighteenth-century wills. Some were a legacy in a low value estate, others were intended for mourning clothes or jewellery, while a bequest of a shilling could signify that a person had not been overlooked. Lloyd Bonfield suggests that bequests that appear to be ‘insubstantial gifts’ can be the ‘topping-up’ of inter vivos settlements. Here some represent the testator’s final words in a disagreement.832 In 1821, for instance, gardener David Davis stated that, ‘I have another nephew Tho[ma]s Davis but he has turnd a great vilin to me in chiting me of maney pounds theirfore I leve him ondley one shilling to cut him of from aney Claime on my wife’.833

Twenty-one gardeners left over £200 in cash, equivalent to Earle’s median value of a year’s expenditure for middling people in the first half of the eighteenth century.834 The mean amount of cash bequests rose from £225 in 1700-49, to £673 for 1750-99 dipping to £587 for 1800-58. Only three testators left over £2,000 cash, the median

832 Bonfield, ‘Contrasting sources’, p. 658. 833 Will of David Davis 1821, TNA, PROB 11/1651/24. 834 Earle, The making of the English middle class, p. 270.

259

value of the wealth left in Earle’s sample, and also the threshold used by Green and Owens in the late nineteenth century for medium-sized employers.835 One exceptional will stands out. James Lee Jnr.’s cash bequests totalling £43,000 in 1824 were extraordinary considering that Green and Owens found for 1900-01 that only 1.1 percent of total estates were valued at £50,000 and over.836 Lee was a second generation nurseryman and there is every reason to believe his estate could cover his cash bequests. This mirrors Morris’s findings of a skewed distribution, with a few large estates and a lot of ‘modest sized estates’.837

Cash bequests in Fulham had a narrower range than Marsh found for London gardeners between 1680 and 1767 (table 5.2).838 Initially the bequests were similar, with 63 per cent of Fulham gardeners’ wills, and 58 per cent of Marsh’s sample, with cash bequests of £1-£42. For bequests of £100 and over Fulham had a larger proportion of 34 per cent compared to 25 per cent for London. Fulham’s greater proportion of larger bequests could be due to sample bias as 41 per cent of wills with cash bequests for Fulham were in the 1741-67 period, compared to under 11 per cent in Marsh’s sample.839 It can be speculated that this reflects greater profit in the industry in Fulham obtained during the eighteenth century where Marsh’s sample is considerably smaller.

835 Excluding the £43,000 left by James Lee in 1824. Earle, The making of the English middle class, p. 270; Green and Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth’, p. 870. 836 Will of James Lee 1824, TNA, PROB 11/1688/160; Green and Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth’, pp. 848-9. 837 Morris, Men, women and property, p. 84. 838 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 460. The categories for bequests are those given in Marsh’s thesis. Marsh did not include any cash bequests of less than £1 therefore these have been taken out of the Fulham data for the purposes of comparison. 839 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, does not indicate which of his 757 wills (p. 447) included cash, but only 11 per cent of his wills overall were in the period 1741-67.

260

Table 5.2 Comparison of proportions of cash bequests in gardeners’ wills in Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1767, with Marsh’s findings for all London, 1639-1767. Total cash Fulham parish Marsh bequests 1680-1767 (%) 1639-1767 (%)

£1-£22* 50 44 £23-£42 13 13 £43-£99 4 18 £100-£199 21 12 £200-£999 13 11 £1,000-£4,999 0 2 Total (n=) (24) (366) Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 460. Note: *As Marsh excluded amounts under £1 they have also been excluded from the Fulham data.

Property Bequests of land or buildings were mentioned in 128 wills, with 69 gardeners making bequests of only land and/or their own home but property values were rarely given. Early eighteenth-century investments by gardeners were in property and secured loans receiving interest, as Earle found.840 For example, in 1711 Thomas Shearcroft’s will included his garden business, five tenements in Fulham that he rented out, and a loan he had made of £100.841

Fire insurance policies detailing property insured were taken out by the owners of 44 garden businesses, comprising 38 policies in the period 1777-99 and 39 for 1800- 39.842 There was a wide range of sums insured. Prior to 1800 the range was £200- £6,350 (median £500); from 1800 the range of £200-£5,700 was similar but more policies had high sums insured (median £1,100). In 31 policies the sums insured for

840 Earle, The making of the English middle class, pp. 146-7, 155. 841 Will of Thomas Shearcroft, 1711, LMA, MS09172/104, Will number 91. 842 Sun Fire Office Policies, 1777-1839, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936.

261

business premises were separate from other items and the mean rose from £247 pre 1800 to £752 from 1800. This may indicate additional premises on a site, insuring existing premises for the first time, and/or increased property valuations.843 Mary Bagley’s husband had insured ‘his dwelling house warehouse laundry and offices … and stable’ in 1799 while in 1809, when Mary was running the garden, she insured ‘her now dwelling house warehouse packing house stable brewhouse and loft over … stable, granary and cartshed’.844 As we have seen Pearson found that insurance need not cover all property; the extra items appearing in Mary’s policy may indicate her greater prudence, and property being specified individually, rather than new premises.845

The sums insured in 14 policies, written between 1777 and 1786, suggest that gardeners’ wealth was ranked above the mid-level of ten other London trades in 1780, examined by Leonard Schwarz and L. Jones.846 To compare the wealth of policy holders they considered the sums insured in those trades where at least 50 policies were issued during 1780.847 Comparing the policies of the 14 Fulham gardeners with the rankings of sums insured in the ten occupations, 36 per cent of gardeners had sums insured greater than £500, and ranked equal to carpenters, the trade with the fourth highest sums insured. For sums insured greater than £800, gardeners, with 14 per cent, ranked below the fourth highest with 22 per cent, again the carpenters, but well above the fifth highest, victuallers, with 7 per cent. The relatively small number of gardeners makes the conclusion tentative, but around 1780 garden business owners, on average, were wealthier than chandlers, butchers, shoemakers, tailors, bakers and victuallers, but not as wealthy as carpenters, bricklayers, grocers and merchants, by this measure.

843 Pearson, Insuring the industrial revolution, pp. 301, 308. 844 Richard, Bagley, 1792, Sun Fire Office, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/389/601771; Mary Bagley, 1809, Sun Fire Office, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/448/830150. 845 Pearson, Insuring the industrial revolution, pp. 301, 318. 846 Schwarz and Jones, ‘Wealth, occupations, and insurance’, p. 371. 847 The occupations they used were chandlers, butchers, shoemakers, tailors, bakers, victuallers, carpenters, bricklayers, grocers, and merchants. Gardeners were not included.

262

Nineteen gardeners had insured investments in property, predominantly housing, and were receiving rental income. Prior to 1800 the median sum insured for investment properties was £500 and from 1800 onwards, £1,200. Property inflation, which Pearson related to increased building costs, can be seen in Thomas Jones’s insurance of two houses ‘opposite the Adelphi in the Strand’, London, where the sum insured rose from £700 in 1784 to £1,200 in 1807.848 Of the 13 gardeners whose total sums insured were £1,000 and above, 11 policies were dated after 1800, suggesting the rise included an inflationary effect rather than entirely an increase in business value.

The descriptions in policies and wills show gardeners’ property investments varied in location, size and number. Some houses were large with an assortment of outbuildings, for example with a dairy, wash house, stable, pheasantry, garden, greenhouse and paddock in Kensington, while others were ‘three little houses’.849 In 1764 Jacob Thompson left 18 houses in the City near Newgate market while John Lewis had the largest portfolio of 54 houses, predominantly in Fulham parish.850 Simply counting houses is a blunt measure of wealth, but it has been utilised in order to compare results with Marsh’s earlier findings of the number of houses that gardeners owned in London, other than their own home, (table 5.3). Marsh used both ‘definite’ evidence (n=122) and estimates (n=74).851 The number for Fulham and Hammersmith has been derived either from the actual number stated, by inference from the names of tenants, or if ‘several houses’ or ‘houses’ were mentioned they

848 Thomas Jones, 1784, Sun Fire Office Policies, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/321/492689; Thomas Jones, 1807, Sun Fire Office, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/440/804271; Pearson, Insuring the industrial revolution, p. 372. ‘Opposite the Adelphi’ was a prestigious location. The Adelphi buildings in the Strand, built by the Adam brothers, were London’s first neoclassical buildings and were completed in 1772, B. Weinreb, C. Hibbert, J. Keay, and J. Keay, eds., The London encyclopaedia ( 3rd edn., 2008), pp. 6-7. 849 Will of John Lewis, 1807, TNA, PROB 11/1471/236; Will of William Wilcox, 1786, TNA, PROB 11/1143/230. 850 Will of Jacob Thompson, 1764, TNA, PROB 11/896/42; Will of John Lewis, 1807, TNA, PROB 11/1471/236; John Lewis, 1798, Sun Fire Office, LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/410/677269. 851 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 439, Table 10.

263

were counted as two.852 Only 8 wills between 1680 and 1740 from Fulham gardeners included investment property, therefore the period has also been extended to 1858.

Table 5.3 Comparison of investment in houses by gardeners in Fulham and Hammersmith 1680-1858, with Marsh’s data for gardeners in London and Middlesex, 1650-1740.

Marsh: City of London & Fulham & Fulham & Middlesex Hammersmith Hammersmith 1650-1740 1680-1740 1741-1858 Total wills / policies 196 8 59 with houses mentioned

1 house 18.4% 50% 28.8% 2 houses 34.2% 37.5% 44.1% 3-9 houses 41.8% 12.5% 16.9% 10 & over 6.1% - 10.2%

Sources: Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 439; TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936.

Between 1680 and 1858, 67 Fulham gardeners mentioned 244 houses, ranging from one who had a quarter share in four houses in Blackfriars, City of London, to John Lewis’s 54 houses.853 They owned fewer houses than Marsh found for all London gardeners, but the number in the 3-9 category for Fulham may be decreased by the method of estimation. The different periods of the two studies make the comparisons inconclusive, but show that gardeners had surplus capital to invest in housing, and over the whole period at least 25 per cent of those in Fulham and Hammersmith with property investments had 3 or more investment properties, and probably more. The accumulation of property assets by gardeners may be accounted for by increasing life

852 This is an underestimate for Fulham as some documents mention ‘tenements’ or ‘houses’ without specifying a number and they have been included as 2 houses. This adjustment may have been similar to the ‘estimates’ Marsh made. 853 Will of Robert Smith, 1852, PROB 11/2162/281; Will of John Lewis, 1807, PROB11/1471/236.

264

expectancy, and may also reflect the accumulation of inherited property and/or rising incomes.854 Some gardeners had sufficient property to retire and live on rental income.

Morris and Earle found that middle-class town dwellers owned investment property locally.855 Fulham gardeners also had a preference for investing in local property with 46.3 per cent located in Fulham and Hammersmith and a further 16.4 per cent in adjacent parishes (table 5.4). Three properties were distant, in southern Surrey, Essex and Wiltshire.856 Of these only Walter Sergeant’s house in the Wiltshire village where his mother lived has been traced to a family connection.857 The overall picture of Fulham holdings is that their locations had a similar profile to Morris’s findings in Leeds where local property was held to reduce the risk and management costs, but were much more centred on their parish of residence than Earle’s sample of members of London livery companies where 53 per cent had property beyond London and the suburbs.858

As Morris noted, investing in property in an area where landlords had local knowledge and knew the tenants reduced risk and made it easier for the landlord to manage.859 As gardeners travelled regularly to the London markets to sell their produce and acquired knowledge of the districts en route these might be considered ‘local’. We have seen already that Jacob Thompson had houses close to Newgate market; three gardeners had properties in the Strand near to Covent Garden market; and most of the other investment properties in London were similarly placed close to

854 Earle, The making of the English middle class, pp. 141-44, 153-4, 310. 855 Ibid., pp. 155-6; Morris, Men, women and property, pp. 64, 82, 370. 856 The properties in Wiltshire and Surrey were bundled with other property in the portfolios of 2 individuals and are counted under ‘Multiple locations’. 857 Probate inventory of Walter Sergeant, 1688, TNA, PROB 4/14641. 858 Morris, Men, women and property, p. 232; Earle, The making of the English middle class, pp. 394- 404. Earle’s sample did not include anyone in the Gardeners’ company. 859 Green & Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth’, pp. 849, 861-4, 867; Earle, The making of the English middle class, pp. 155-7; Morris, Men, women and property, pp. 232, 370.

265

Table 5.4 Location of investment property in gardeners’ wills and fire insurance policies, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. Number of owners

Location 1680-1799 1800-1858

Fulham & Hammersmith 18 13 Adjacent parishes 3 8 London & Westminster 3 4 Other 1 0 Multiple locations 2 4 Location not given 5 6 Total 32 35

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936. markets or transport routes to the markets.860 Robert Smith’s property, by the Thames at Blackfriars, was close to Dung Wharf where dung was loaded onto barges for transport to the Thames-side gardens, and Walter Sergeant had a house in Garlick Hill leading to Garlick Wharf.861 Carts or boats from Fulham frequently passing near to these areas would make the property more manageable. Meeting gardeners from other districts at the markets provided opportunities to exchange information, for instance particulars of a sale of a garden in Fulham were posted at public houses in Covent Garden, Newgate Market and Fleet Street.862

860 Will of Thomas Jones, 1821, TNA PROB 11/1649/144; Will of John Smith, 1771, TNA, PROB 11/973/77; Will of Henry Salthill, 1764, TNA, PROB 11/897/198. 861 Will of Robert Smith, 1852, TNA, PROB 11/ 2162/281; Will of Walter Sergeant, 1688, TNA, PROB 11/392/78; H. Jenkins, A dictionary of London (1918); Weinreb et al, The London encyclopaedia, p. 319. There was a Garlick Close in Fulham, suggesting that it had been grown there at some time. 862 ‘Garden for sale at Sands End’, The Times, 19 June 1801, p. 3.

266

The varying amounts of investment property held by gardeners echo the findings of Green and Owens, and Schwarz and Jones that within one occupation there would be a range of income levels.863 Eleven of the 13 gardeners with property investments after 1800 had inherited their market garden business suggesting that their inheritance had propelled them past the first stage of debt in a new business in Morris’ and Earle’s cycles, reducing risk and increasing their potential for achieving greater wealth.864 As Earle pointed out, ‘To get rich you had to start rich’, and the view that investment property was more likely to be acquired later in life needs to be tempered by evidence from wills and insurance policies, presented in part 3 of this chapter, showing property could also be inherited by younger men and women.865

Stocks and shares During the eighteenth century the stock market became established as a trusted, alternative to property investment.866 Fifty-one per cent of gardeners’ wills proved after 1799 mentioned stocks and shares compared to 23 per cent of those proved earlier. Most investments were in government securities; one estate had South Sea stock and another had shares in the Waterloo Bridge company.867 Holdings of shares or government securities were mentioned in 70 wills dating from 1726, but predominantly after 1760. Nominal values were present in 53 wills or will extracts, while in 17 wills Bank assets were mentioned but without any valuation. Securities held ranged from nominal values of £20 to £13,000.

863 Green and Owens, ‘Geographies and wealth’, p. 850; Schwarz and Jones, ‘Wealth, occupations, and insurance’, p. 371. 864 The origins of one are not known. 865 Earle, The making of the English middle class, pp. 31, 141, 145. 866 Glaisyer, The culture of commerce, p. 3. 867 Will of Henry Salthill, 1764, TNA, PROB 11/897/198; Will of James Poupart, 1853, TNA, PROB 11/2182/382.

267

Bank of England 3 per cent consols accounts Twenty accounts have been examined with nominal values ranging from £63 to £10,500 (mean £1,534).868 The transactions date from 1761 to 1837, with 7 accounts from the eighteenth century and 13 from the nineteenth century. Forty per cent had stock with a nominal value between £1,000 and £4,999, while 60 per cent had £750 or more.869 Ten accounts were used infrequently and had only opening and closing balances over several years. John Grinstead had the most active account with 11 transactions between 1812 and 1818. He had made regular purchases of £100 stock for the first three years, followed by transfers out after his death in 1817.870 A further 34 accounts for gardeners were traced but not followed up, giving a total of 54 accounts, 17 in the eighteenth century and 37 in the nineteenth century.

The accounts had several functions for gardeners: as trading, savings or partnership accounts for managing wealth during their lifetime; and after death as their executors’ accounts, providing income to legatees through dividends, and for the administration of minors’ or family trusts. Following the death of William Dancer in November 1783 the disbursement of his bequests can be traced in his account. His son and daughter each received £400 of stock and the £100 remaining was administered by his executor to provide an annual income for two (unidentified) women.871 The two gardeners in the eighteenth century who had £1,000 or more in consols and the four in the nineteenth century who had £2,000 or more can be considered to have sufficient wealth in this one asset to be considered middle class. The following case study of an exceptional businessman, James Lee Jnr., shows the zenith of commercial gardening in the early nineteenth century.

868 Bank of England Stock ledgers, Consols £3%, 1761-1837, BEA, AC 27. 869 Mean=£993 if the largest account of £10,500 (nominal) is excluded. 870 Stock Ledger: Consols £3% ‘GI-GU’, 1812-1818, BEA, AC27/1855. The recipients included his daughters, Elizabeth Cock, and Sarah Rivers who later became partners with Richard Perry, see chapter 4, p. 227. 871 Will of William Dancer, 1783, TNA, PROB 11/1110/315; William Dancer, Deceased, Stock Ledger: Consols £3% ‘D’, 1782-1788, BEA, AC27/1529; Stock Ledger: Consols £3% ‘D-E’, 1788- 1792, BEA, AC27/1603; Stock Ledger: Consols £3% ‘D’, 1792-1798, BEA, AC27/1627.

268

Case study – James Lee Jnr. The family history of the Lee family has been told by Eleanor Willson and will not be repeated in detail here, rather a new interpretation of their garden business arises from evidence of their wealth.872 James Lee Jnr.’s business was inherited from his father, James Lee Snr., an eminent botanist, writer, introducer of plants and collaborator with Carl Linnaeus.873 James Lee Snr. had trained in nobility gardens, then established a business in partnership with Lewis Kennedy around 1745 at the Vineyard nursery in Hammersmith.874 When he died in 1795 aged 80 he left leasehold and copyhold land, investment property and £1,500 in 3 per cent consols.875 James Jnr. was already working in the business. He took over his father’s partnership share and eventually bought out Kennedy Jnr. in 1818. Within 25 years Lee transformed his inheritance into a fortune.876

The business continued under the Lee family until 1894, but Willson was of the opinion that it reached its peak under James Lee Jnr. He dealt with the highest in the land both in England and overseas, supplying plants to the garden of Empress Josephine at Malmaison.877 In addition to the grounds at the Vineyard, he also had land ‘across the road in Fulham’, 14 acres in Kensington parish, as well as 40 acres at Feltham, Hanwell and Bedfont, Middlesex.878 With such dispersed land James Lee would have employed foremen but he remained in charge. His business strategy was based on finding, raising and exploiting plants that were ‘new and of interest’ and ‘valuable novelties’. This was summed up in a letter written in 1806 to William Aiton, director at Kew Gardens, in response to a request for a list of the nursery’s

872 E. Willson, James Lee and the Vineyard nursery (1961). 873 E. Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 43-58; J. Lee, Introduction to botany (1st edn., 1760); Correspondence between Linnaeus and Lee, 1766-81, http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_bio.php?id_person=1097, last accessed 27 July 2017. 874 Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 43-4. The Olympia exhibition centre is on the site of the Vineyard nursery. 875 Will of James Lee, 1795, LMA, MS 9172/179 Will number 268; Stock Ledger: Consols £3%, ‘L’, 1776-1788, BEA, AC27/1491. 876 Will of James Lee, 1795, LMA, MS 9172/179, Will number 268. 877 Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 46-7. 878 Ibid., p. 50.

269

plant introductions. He replied ‘Mesambryanthemums we have nearly given up, they do not pay a nurseryman and we have too many irons in the fire to indulge a fancy that can be better employed in things that repay us’: James was a shrewd businessman.879

James Lee Jnr. had two accounts at the Bank of England. In the first he set up a trust for his children with two other trustees, his partner John Kennedy and Robert Garrard, the silversmith of Panton Street, London. The inclusion of Robert Garrard, jeweller to royalty, is an indication of the status achieved by James Lee. The trust stood at a nominal £4,500 in 1812, but a codicil to his will dated 1824 said it contained a nominal £6,700 in stock.880 Lee also had a personal account with an opening balance of £2,400 in 1804 and a closing balance of £9,200 in 1812. In the early 1800s he was buying around £2,500 consols bi-annually, suggesting he was making a considerable surplus.881

The will of nurseryman James Lee Jnr., proved in 1824 less than two months after it was written, shows his exceptional wealth. There were cash bequests of £43,000, £5,900 in investments, a gold watch for his wife, and a grand piano for his two daughters to share, but he stated that the total estate was worth £75,000.882 Owens and Green found that in 1901 only 1.1 per cent of all probate values were over £50,000, and this must place James Lee among the wealthiest businessmen in the country at his death.883 His fortune speaks to his skill as a nurseryman and his

879 Willson, West London nursery gardens, pp. 47, 50-1. W. Aiton, Hortus Kewensis (1810-13) reported 135 plant introductions by the Lee family. B. Jackson, ‘Lee, James (1715-1795)’, revised A. Pimlott Baker, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004; online edn, May 2006), last accessed 30 March 2017. 880 Will of James Lee, 1824 TNA, PROB 11/1688/160; James Lee of Hammersmith, Nurseryman, Robert Garrard, Panton St, Silversmith, John Kennedy, Hammersmith, Nurseryman, Stock Ledger: Consols £3% ‘L’, 1804-1812, BEA, AC27/1777. 881 James Lee of Hammersmith, Nurseryman, Stock Ledger: Consols £3% ‘L’, 1804-1812, BEA, AC27/1777. This account began prior to 1804 but the previous ledger has not been located. Unfortunately a will extract is not available to compare the actual value with the nominal amount. 882 Will of James Lee, 1824, TNA, PROB 11/1688/ 160. 883 Green and Owens, ‘Geographies of wealth’, pp. 848-9.

270

business acumen. Building on the work of his father, he achieved phenomenal success, showing what could be accomplished in a family gardening business. This success depended in part on accumulated family property and wealth, and inheriting a highly regarded business, but it also required considerable technical skill, market knowledge and management strategy.

TOTAL WEALTH From the assets held by gardeners for which a monetary value has been found an estimate of their total wealth can be constructed. There were 22 individuals, predominantly ‘gardeners’, who had both an insurance policy and a will, or details from Bank of England sources, giving a monetary value for bequests of securities. From these comparative data can be calculated for the wealth of individuals in this group (table 5.5).884 Dating from 1782 to 1843, their wealth ranged from £510 to £6,862 (median £2,615).885 There is an additional element of their wealth of unknown size that is omitted, covering the value of their freehold land, leases, crops and stock in trade. The ‘market gardeners’ were the wealthiest group, which is probably due to them all being in the nineteenth century, although a ‘gardener’ had the highest individual wealth in this sub-set.886 The ‘gardeners’ showed both the widest range of wealth and the lowest mean, in part reflecting the longest time span, but all can be considered middle class.

884 The occupation given in their wills. 885 Only 2 estates were proved prior to 1800. 886 The occupational descriptors are taken from the wills, or one of the other sources if not specified in the will. The gardener was John Lewis, died 1807.

271

Table 5.5 Comparative wealth for gardening occupations, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Nurseryman / Market Farmer- Gardener Seedsman gardener gardener n= 3 4 13 2

Date range 1800-1835 1821-1843 1782-1837 1798-1822

Range of £510 - £6,856 £2,310 - £6,720 £550 - £6,862 £2,827 - £4,292 wealth

Mean £ 2,930 £4,252 £2,712 £3,529 wealth

Median £1,425 £3,913 £2,307 £3,529 wealth

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; Bank of England will extracts 1717-1845, SoG, 96707; Stock ledger: Consols £3%, BEA, AC27; LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936.

Turning now to the wealth of all gardeners, a simple total of the wealth found for each one, irrespective of its composition, is shown in figure 5.5.887 There were 11 who died in the eighteenth century leaving £1,000 or more, including two with over £2,000 and one with £11,000. Eighteen in the nineteenth century came within Green and Owens’s category of middle-rank employers leaving £2,000 or more, including one with £13,100 and another with £15,800, but only James Lee Jnr. came within their ‘substantial employers’ category. These figures confirm the anecdotal evidence of the high profitability of some gardens, but without a series of appropriate prices the effect of inflation is difficult to judge.

887 This excludes the 57 individuals for whom there is no information on their wealth.

272

Figure 5.5 Total wealth of all gardeners, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; Bank of England will extracts 1717-1845, SoG, 96707; Stock ledger: Consols £3%, BEA, AC27; LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936.

The trend towards stocks and shares forming an increasing proportion of bequests (shown in figure 5.3) is examined further in table 5.6. Of the 139 wills that provide valuations of bequests approximately half quantify or mention investments in Bank of England stock and show a much higher level of wealth than wills with valued bequests but no known holdings of Bank of England stock. A third of those holding Bank stock were proved before 1800 and two thirds from 1800 onwards. Where

273

Table 5.6

Comparison of the total wealth in gardeners’ wills with or without Bank of England assets, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858. Number Median Date Number Overall Median proved Range of Average wealth Number proved proved Median wealth 1800 & wealth wealth 1800 & range pre1800 wealth pre 1800 later later Wealth including valuation 1762- £100- of Bank of England 53 16 37 £2,894 £1,035 £777 £1,220 1848 £48,900 investments Wealth including mention of Bank of England 1726- £0.25- 17 8 9 £256 £100 £85 £180 investments but without 1857 £1,600 any valuation of stock

Summary of wealth of all 1726- £0.25- wills including Bank of 70 24 46 £2,254 £625 £438 £1,030 1857 £48,900 England holdings Wealth of wills without Bank of England 1680- £0.05- 69 50 19 £194 £20 £10 £530 investments, but other 1852 £2,100 bequests valued Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194; Bank of England will extracts 1717-1845; SoG, 96707; Stock ledger: Consols £3%, BEA, AC27; LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936.

274

valuations of Bank stock are available the median nominal value held was 57 per cent higher in the nineteenth century than in earlier years. The increase in the proportion of wills holding government securities suggests that the profitability of garden businesses provided sufficient surplus capital for more gardeners to spread risk by including government securities in their investment strategy, as Earle had found.888

WEALTH - CONCLUSIONS While these results can only be indicative, they do show that there was a range of wealth across gardening occupations, and also within each occupational category. The increases from the later eighteenth century are due in part to sample bias caused by the extra sources available. Previous chapters have shown that the predominant use of the all-encompassing ‘gardener’ masks a variety of occupations and businesses and this is also evident in the varying levels of their wealth. It is likely that further forays into the Bank of England archives would reveal more Bank stock holdings especially those that were unidentified within the ‘rest and residue’ of testator’s estates or were present in the 29 per cent of wills that gave no valuations of bequests. Some gardeners were actively managing their Bank of England stock accounts but it is also clear that the securities recorded in gardeners’ wills were unlikely to represent the true situation at death in 70 per cent of the cases examined, although it probably reflects the amount held at the time of writing.

The estimates of wealth do not include the value of any land or leases which could be significant amounts. Chapter 4 showed that few gardeners held freehold or copyhold land, but leasehold land and the business assets were a marketable commodity. For example, in 1787 the Rough family’s 37 year lease on 14.5 acres of garden ground

888 Earle, The making of the English middle class, pp. 147, 155

275

realised £435 at auction, and the marketable stock and crops raised £70.889 By 1825 prices had risen significantly; a lease for 48 acres of market garden land in the same area of south Fulham sold for £6,030, a rise from £30 to £125 per acre.890 Julia Matheson reports sums of between £668 for under 10 acres of rented garden ground, up to £1,600 for 10-20 acres being paid to Hackney gardeners in 1843 as compensation for taking their land for the building of a public park.891

The items in James Lee’s will and other government stocks amounted to a wealth of £50,000, but in the will he valued his estate at £75,000, most of the 50 per cent increase was probably the value of his stock in trade and extensive landholdings.892 For the few gardeners who had large landholdings it indicates the potential high undervaluation of their estates. If the value of leases and any freehold land were to be added to these wealth figures the position of all the garden business owners would rise in the wealth hierarchies outlined by Earle, and Green and Owens: more would come within the middle employer category, although the market gardeners association with working the land probably limited their social status outside the parish.

The results indicate that there was a range of profitability in the commercial gardening industry. It provided a comfortable living for most employers, was profitable enough for over half to have surplus income to invest in property or stocks and shares, and a few made a very good living. The case study of James Lee Jnr. has shown how much could be achieved over two generations in a very successful business. The next section deals with those gardeners who did not fare so well.

889 William Smith, gardener, Unpublished depositions, 1786-97, TNA, C 24/2452; Rough v Riley, 1793-6, C 12/2182/1; Rough v Bryon, 1793, C 12/2171/10. Why they were given a 42 year lease is unknown. 890 Particulars and conditions of sale, Sir Evan Napean estate, Fulham, 1825, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328/92. The purchaser was Laurence Sulivan. 891 Matheson, Common ground, p. 88. 892 The figure excludes any property valuation as an insurance policy was not located.

276

PART 2, BUSINESS FAILURES

INTRODUCTION While some gardeners amassed sufficient wealth to purchase houses, and had investments at the Bank of England, others found themselves in financial difficulties. Creditors trying to obtain payment began with ‘neighbourly negotiation’, escalating to arbitration through third parties or threats of imprisonment, but if these failed then there was recourse to the law, which either placed the debtor into insolvency and debtor’s prison, or being sued for bankruptcy.893 The distinction between insolvency and bankruptcy needs clarification. During the eighteenth century bankruptcy was restricted to individuals in certain occupations who owed at least £100, primarily those considered to be ‘traders’, from which farmers were excluded from 1706.894 As commercial gardening had developed from farming, gardeners were also excluded until 1842.895 Therefore insolvency was the predominant legal route for creditors, although if gardening was a secondary occupation bankruptcy could be available. Debtors were faced with a choice between payment, imprisonment, or fleeing the country to await their creditors proposing suitable terms, Boulogne being a popular destination.896 Rather than surrendering themselves to the legal process six gardeners in Fulham and Hammersmith fled overseas to avoid being imprisoned for debt.897

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES Information about bankrupts and insolvents appeared in the London Gazette and this forms the main source for this discussion. Several times each week the Gazette

893 Earle, The making of the English middle class, pp. 123-30; C. Muldrew, ‘The culture of reconciliation: community and the settlement of economic disputes in early modern England’, Historical Journal, 39:4 (1996), p. 931. 894 J. Hoppit, ‘Financial crises in eighteenth century England’, EcHR, 39:1 (1986), p. 44; I. Duffy, ‘English bankrupts 1572-1861’, American Journal of Legal History, 24:4 (1980), pp. 293-4. 895 Duffy, ‘English bankrupts’, pp. 293-4, 299. Some inconsistencies in the application of this law seem to have occurred. Morris, Men, women and property, p. 53, argues that people occupied in agriculture could be classified as traders and become bankrupt. 896 Duffy, ‘English bankrupts’, p. 291. 897 The London Gazette, https://www.thegazette.co.uk, last accessed 27 July 2017.

277

published announcements about cases, naming people and giving their current and previous occupations and addresses.898 The number of notices published varied for each case therefore the results presented here are based on the date of the first notice found for each gardener. In Fulham 42 gardeners became insolvent between 1723 and 1859, ten went bankrupt and three had debts that were the subject of cases in the Chancery court (figure 5.6).899 Of these, 63.6 percent had only one gardening occupation, 16.3 percent had gardening combined with another gardening occupation or with retailing, while 8 bankrupts also called themselves ‘dealer and chapman’. It was commonplace for some debtors to have ‘described themselves fictitiously as

Figure 5.6 Number of bankrupt or insolvent gardeners in the London Gazette, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1720-1859.

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6

Number 5 4 3 2 1 0

Decade

Insolvent (n=42) Bankrupt (n=10) Chancery (n=3)

Source: Calculated from notices in the London Gazette.

898 The London Gazette also included announcements of partnerships being dissolved and various other items but only references to debt have been counted here. 899 How some became bankrupt before 1842 is unclear.

278

“dealer or chapman” to qualify for bankruptcy’ and so be able to take advantage of the better terms available, especially avoiding a term of imprisonment.900

INSOLVENT AND BANKRUPT GARDENERS Beginning in 1720 there was a maximum of 3 cases of insolvent or bankrupt gardeners in Fulham per decade until the 1820s when there were 9, peaking at 14 in the 1830s.901 Figure 5.7 compares the total number of insolvency and bankruptcy notices to ascertain if the trend in business failures in Fulham and Hammersmith varied from that of gardeners elsewhere.902 The percentage distribution of all notices issued within each geographical area is used to compare the incidence as the total number of gardeners in each area is unknown. This is a crude measure as it shows total notices not individuals and it must be borne in mind that, although there is no reason to think that the average number of notices per individual would vary significantly across London and Middlesex, elsewhere there could be different practices for placing notices. The overall distribution is similar in all areas. The rise in the early 1800s began later in Fulham and Hammersmith than elsewhere and then rises more steeply to intersect the other trendlines in 1835. John Rutt, a gardener in Hammersmith who became bankrupt in 1821, blamed his financial difficulties on acquiring a lease with a high rent when food prices were high, which was unsustainable once prices dropped.903 From 1840 to 1849 the trend for England and Wales rises steeply, increases less steeply for the rest of London but falls for Fulham and Hammersmith.904 The increasing number of gardeners across England and Wales

900 TNA, Bankrupts and insolvent debtors, (Legal records information 5, 2012), http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/bankrupts-insolvent-1710-1869.htm, last accessed 27 July 2017. 901 Calculated from notices in the London Gazette. 902 This method (the total number of all notices) has been chosen as it would be a very long process to identify the first notice for each individual over 130 years. 903 In the matter of John Rutt of Red Cow Lane, hamlet of Hammersmith, in the parish of Fulham, Middlesex, market gardener (dealer and chapman), bankrupt. Date of commission of bankruptcy: 1821 January 23, TNA, B 3/4264. 904 The 1750-59 peak in Fulham and Hammersmith is a statistical aberration, resulting from small numbers when, unusually, 7 notices were issued for 3 individuals. The actual trend remains flat.

279

Figure 5.7 Distribution of all insolvency and bankruptcy notices for gardeners in Fulham and Hammersmith, London, and England and Wales, 1720-1849.

Source: Calculated from notices in the London Gazette. serving the rising urban population may account for proportionately more bankrupt and insolvent gardeners in this period, while the decreasing garden acreage in Fulham and Hammersmith probably reduced the incidence of failed businesses. The evidence suggests that for most of the period the rate of failure of garden businesses in Fulham and Hammersmith was similar to elsewhere.

The economic difficulties in the early nineteenth century coincide with an increase in bankruptcies and insolvencies for Fulham gardeners. From 1780 to 1850 economic activity took a cyclical pattern, with swings in prices, income, inflation and deflation.905 The financial crisis following the outbreak of war with France created a

905 Morris, Men, women and property, p. 52.

280

peak in bankruptcies in all occupations in England and Wales in 1793, rising sharply from 1810 with another peak occurring in 1826, as shown in figure 5.8.906

Figure 5.8 All bankruptcies in England and Wales 1780-1850.907

Source: Morris, Men, women and property, p. 54, based on data from S. Marriner, ‘English bankruptcy records and statistics before 1850’, EcHR, 33:3 (1980), Table 1, pp. 353-4.

Gardeners may have been cushioned to some extent by income obtained during the period of high food prices during the Napoleonic wars and in the depression afterwards, although figure 5.6 shows a steep increase in bankruptcies and insolvencies in Fulham from 1820-39, and suggests that some gardeners were affected by the economic difficulties.908 Gardens that were not producing high profits presented targets for land speculators and housing developers, as shown in chapter 4, and some leases may have been sold voluntarily, raising finance to satisfy creditors, and avoiding legal proceedings.

906 Hoppit, ‘Financial crises’, p. 55; Morris, Men, women and property, pp. 53-4. 907 The figure shows graphically the 7 data series in Marriner’s table, none of which were complete for the whole period. Morris did not provide a legend to indicate which symbols represented which column in the table. 908 Hoppit, ‘Financial crises’, pp. 45, 55; P. Atherall, The displacement of market gardening around London by urban growth, 1745-1939, unpublished MLitt thesis, University of Cambridge (1976), pp. 83, 100.

281

In addition to economic difficulties gardeners had to withstand the adverse effect of periods of bad weather on output. Localised late frosts, heavy rain, unseasonally low temperatures and hail storms could ruin the season’s crop, potentially wiping out financial gains from the previous four or five years.909 John Evelyn reported very dry years for 1683-5 followed by very wet weather in 1686 when some of the Neat House gardeners could not pay their rent.910 From the 1690s until 1850 there were 50 cold winters and 28 freezing winters, and the river Thames froze for ten winters between 1807 and 1855.911 At the Neat House rents were reduced following lower profits after bad weather at the turn of the eighteenth century.912 Temperatures fell in 1783-4 following the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland, and an eruption in Indonesia resulted in 1816 being called ‘the year without a summer’.913

Such weather could be expected to have spoiled garden crops, or reduced yields and to impact on business failures. The severe season in 1739/40 was reported to have destroyed all the artichoke roots in England, leading to several gardeners going to France to buy replacements.914 Little has been written about the effect of poor weather on garden businesses. The practice of multiple cropping, diversification into other farming, and rentier income, could alleviate the impact of an adverse weather event. For those who had borrowings the coincidence of bad weather and economic instability may have contributed to the rise in business failures, especially after 1810. Wealthier families could support younger members with loans, as Morris also found,

909 Stead, ‘Risk and risk management’, p. 337. 910 Thick, The Neat House, p. 90. 911 I. Currie, Frosts, freezes and fairs (Coulsdon, 1996), pp. 14-20; L. Schwarz, London in the age of industrialisation: entrepreneurs, labour force and living conditions, 1700-1850 (Cambridge, 1992), p. 116. 912 Thick, The Neat House, pp. 123-4. 913 C. Witham and C. Oppenheimer, ‘Mortality in England during the 1783-4 Laki Craters Eruption’, Bulletin of Volcanology, 67:1 (2004), 15-26. 914 Weekly Miscellany, 384 (May 3, 1740).

282

and there is evidence in wills of outstanding loans deducted from adult children’s inheritances.915

It would be expected that those who were skilled or old enough to have businesses that were financially resilient, or having alternative income sources, would have been better placed to withstand economic downturns. However, even members of families who had been in business over several generations succumbed to bankruptcy or insolvency in the 1820s and 1830s, including William Wilcox, John and William Millett, William Dancer and George Sendall.916 Throughout the whole period 58 per cent of Fulham gardeners who became bankrupt or insolvent appear only once in the gardeners’ database, suggesting that they did not re-enter the industry. The case of John Rutt which follows shows how the coincidence of several difficulties, including economic instability, the potential breakdown in credit relations, and family issues, resulted in his bankruptcy.

BANKRUPTCY OF JOHN RUTT Documents created in the course of the bankruptcy of John Rutt in 1821, a gardener from Hammersmith aged 61, provide a view of how one garden business was run and the significance of credit.917 Whether John Rutt’s was a typical garden business failure is not known but it provides rich evidence of the circumstances that resulted in a bankruptcy. Business records form part of the documentation and offer a rare occasion when amounts due and owing for a garden business are available and, together with the depositions from his wife, servant and creditors, provide an insight into business dealings. The bankruptcy occurred in a period of economic difficulty

915 Morris, Men, women and property, p. 177; Will of Matthew Burchell, 1830, TNA, PROB 11/1772/1; Will of Thomas Jones, 1821, TNA, PROB 11/1649/144. 916 William Wilcox, London Gazette, 18185 (1825), p. 1914; John Millett, London Gazette, 19230 (1835), p. 92; William Millett, 18543, London Gazette, (1820), p. 150; William Dancer, London Gazette, 19116 (1834), p. 20; George Sendall, London Gazette, 17785 (1822), p. 173. 917 In the matter of John Rutt 1821, TNA, B 3/4264; England, Select Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991, www.ancestry.co.uk (online database), last accessed 20 June 2017.

283

between 1819 and 1822 when six garden businesses in Fulham parish failed, mirroring the trend for all gardeners in London (see figure 5.7).

John Rutt rented 21 acres of garden ground in south-east Hammersmith and he styled himself a ‘market gardener, dealer and chapman’. A deposition to the bankruptcy commissioners described the business. The gardening side of the business specialised in growing potatoes while the dealing side, in this instance an accurate description of his occupation, involved buying-in large amounts of potatoes and seeds to sell on.918 As Craig Muldrew has pointed out, evidence for the importance of credit can be found in court cases that deal with the failure of credit relations.919 The accounts show the financial state of the business, but do not mention any cash-in-hand or in a bank. Earle and Muldrew have shown how ‘outstanding bills were a way of business’ and Rutt was both a borrower and a lender, and his records show reciprocal debts.920 He owed £108 for household items and £207 for business related debts while others owed him £132, including some people to whom he was also a creditor. Additionally he owed Messrs Bird, a local building company, £127 while they owed him £22. For a few years in the early 1800s the land tax records show George and William Bird had rented property from Rutt, with an annual value of £10 and £20.921 Bills were usually ‘mutually cancelled’ in due course and settled on a net basis, but in 1821 he owed more money than was due to him.922 Unfortunately the income from the potato business was not given.

For several years Rutt had been financing his business by borrowing: the builders were owed for replacing an outbuilding and repairing a roof but George Bird had also ‘lent and advanced’ money to Rutt between 1813 and 1821, of which £63 was outstanding. He owed on two other loans; £114 was due to Richard Howells, a local

918 Statement of Thomas Deadman, 25 January 1821, In the matter of John Rutt, 1821, TNA, B/3264. 919 C. Muldrew, ‘Interpreting the market: the ethics of credit and community relations in early modern England’, Social History, 18:2 (1993), p. 172. 920 Earle, The making of the English middle class, p. 116; Muldrew, ‘Interpreting the market’, p. 173. 921 Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1801-08, LMA, MR/PLT/4858-65. 922 Muldrew, ‘Interpreting the market’, p. 173.

284

market gardener, dating from 1820, and £190 was owed to John Howard, a gentleman in Hammersmith, on a bond taken out in 1815.923 Rutt had also acted as guarantor for a loan made to his son-in-law, who defaulted and Rutt became responsible for repaying the £160 debt.924

The events that led to a creditor filing for Rutt’s bankruptcy began in December 1820 when John Howard died. Howard’s will instructed that all his outstanding debts should be collected as quickly as possible, including the loan to John Rutt, however repayment was not forthcoming.925 It is not clear who first proposed the bankruptcy proceedings, Howard’s executors or Messrs Bird the builders. It was probably the builders who by suing for bankruptcy would pre-empt any payment to Howard and at least get a share of Rutt’s assets proportionate to the amount they were owed, rather than possibly nothing if the debt to Howard was settled. Proceedings began a month after Howard’s will was proved.

The financial situation was of great concern to Rutt. His servant reported that on hearing he was to be declared bankrupt the gardener had left his home ‘to secrete himself from his creditors for fear of being arrested’ and had not returned in time to attend the first bankruptcy hearing four days later.926 When finally questioned Rutt ascribed the failure of his business to taking on an ‘extravagant rent’ of £340 per annum for 21 acres, ‘more than Sixteen Pounds per acre’, and the subsequent ‘very low Price[s] at Market of Fruit and Vegetables’, increases in poor rate and tithes, and other ‘unfortunate circumstances’.927 A price series is unavailable for potatoes but the published series for field beans gives an indication of the large price swings during this period which could have influenced setting his new rent and his

923 Deposition of George Bird, 13 February 1821, Deposition of Richard Howells, 18 May 1821, Deposition of John Saunders (Executor of John Howard), 13 February 1821, In the matter of John Rutt, TNA, B 3/4264. 924 Accounts, 10th March 1821, In the matter of John Rutt, 1821, TNA, B 3/4264. 925 Will of John Howard, 1820, TNA, PROB 11/1637/120. 926 Statement of Thomas Deadman, 25 January 1821, In the matter of John Rutt, 1821, TNA, B/3264. 927 In the matter of John Rutt, 1821, TNA, B/3264.

285

income.928 In early 1808 a quarter of beans was 57 shillings, by October 1812 they had reached 92 shillings and then began to fall back. In January 1821 they were 32 shillings and at the end of the year had fallen to 24 shillings. Rent was a major cost in the garden but maintaining payments was fundamental to keeping a business, yet Rutt owed his landlord £246.929 The date of the lease is not known but examination of three leases for garden ground in Fulham parish made between 1804 and 1814 indicates that the price he paid was comparable to other rents.930 Rent reflected the income produced per acre: if the rent had been set at a time when food prices were high, when they subsequently fell the rent would have been onerous.931 As there was insufficient ready money to pay the creditors’ bills, furniture, growing crops and other effects were sold by public auction raising £150, and arrangements were made with the landlord to give up the land.932

Both family and firm were under scrutiny in the proceedings. There is a consensus in the historiography that ‘kinship was the organising principle’ particularly in eighteenth-century businesses; the family and firm were each dependent on the other.933 This can be seen in Rutt’s accounts which did not distinguish between household and business, with bills from the butcher, baker and grocer intermingled

928 The Gentleman’s Magazine, vols. 78-91 (1808-1821), https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006056643, last accessed 6 August 2017. 929 In the Chancery case detailed in Rough, The operation of a small business, the Fulham gardening family were up-to-date with their rent while other creditors were sending in the sheriff to distrain goods. 930 Lease, John Lewis, Hammersmith, gentleman to Edward Patrick Warner, Fulham, gardener,1804, HFA, DD/21/16; Lease, William John Hunt, Sloane Street, Middlesex, gentleman, to George Dobson, Hammersmith, Gardener, 1809, HFA, DD/316/35; Lease, Stephen Moore Esq. to Mr Joseph Champness, 1814, HFA, DD/306/16/8. These include the following rents: 1 acre of garden ground plus buildings, house, yard, £17 per annum, 1804; 1 acre of garden ground and premises, £25 per annum, 1809; 9 acres of ground and orchard, 2 messuages, warehouse, sheds, stable and yard, £16 per acre per annum, 1814. 931 Price series for vegetables and fruit are not available. However, Rutt had said that the prices he received had previously been higher. In the matter of John Rutt, TNA, B 3/4264. 932 In the matter of John Rutt, TNA, B 3/4264. 933 P. Mathias, The first industrial nation: an economic history of Britain, 1700-1914 (1969), p. 162-3; M. Rose, ‘The family firm in British business, 1780-1914’, in M. Kirkby and M. Rose, eds., Business enterprise in modern Britain: from the eighteenth century to the twentieth century (1994); A. Owens, ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms in the early industrial revolution’, Business History, 44:1 (2002), 21-46.

286

with those from the seedsman, basket maker and farrier.934 With his first wife Rutt had two sons and two daughters. It had not been John Rutt’s intention for his two sons to join the potato business as the accounts included a sum for ‘fitting out’ his sons to join the East India Company.935

Rutt remarried in 1808, aged 48, to a widow, Elizabeth Deadman.936 Elizabeth would have learned business skills while growing up in a local gardening business, and when married to Thomas Deadman, another Fulham gardener. She must have been considerably involved in Deadman’s business as he said in his will that it was to her ‘care attention and industry I am chiefly indebted for what worldly property I now possess’.937 Elizabeth was well provided for by her first husband, with a bequest of at least £700 principal in Bank of England stock for her ‘sole and separate use’ and the rest and residue in his estate.938 She also received the ‘loan’ of 14 acres of orchard and garden ground in Hammersmith, a house, barn and other premises which he had rented from John Skerritt from 1799, and a legacy in her mother’s will in the same year.939 In the land tax records the property, valued at £112, changed from Thomas Deadman to Mrs Deadman for two years and after she remarried the same land was recorded as occupied by John Rutt until 1821.940 The new lease with an ‘extravagant’ rent may have been for the Deadman land.

Elizabeth was involved in Rutt’s business. During her examination by the bankruptcy commissioners Elizabeth said that she ran the gardening side of the business,

934 In the matter of John Rutt, TNA, B 3/4264. 935 In the matter of John Rutt, TNA, B 3/4264. 936 West Middlesex marriage transcription, 1808, www.findmypast.co.uk, last accessed 27 July 2017; Census returns,1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule, TNA, HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5. 937 Will of Thomas Deadman, 1806, TNA, PROB 11/1452/210. 938 Will of Thomas Deadman, 1806, TNA, PROB 11/1452/210. 939 Will of Thomas Deadman, 1806, TNA, PROB 11/1452/210; A survey and valuation of all the lands and buildings within the hamlet of Hammersmith, 1793, HFA, PAH/1/157; Will of Elizabeth Eayres, 1806, TNA, PROB 11/1444/107. Elizabeth Eayres’ will mentions £2,450 predominantly in Bank of England stock. The meaning of the ‘loan’ in Deadman’s will is not clear. 940 Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1799-1821, LMA, MR/PLT/4856-77.

287

inferring that her husband’s only concern was trading in potatoes, and when asked if the money was entirely under her care answered, ‘Yes’. Under the laws of coverture her husband was entirely responsible for the business finances, nevertheless she told the commissioners that she had not accounted for all the money as there was ‘part I considered my own’.941 Here is another example of a woman running a gardening business, one whose contribution was given recognition in her first husband’s will but after remarriage would have been almost invisible without the evidence in the bankruptcy documents. At the time of her re-marriage Elizabeth was a wealthy businesswoman, and it is evident that she considered the income from the dividends and government stock to be hers and not at the disposal of the commissioners. Where she stood in law, and whether or not the commissioners agreed with her, is unknown.

Family connections were also an important component of business, and family, employees, creditors and neighbours were inevitably affected by the bankruptcy, as loss of reputation was threatened.942 Rutt referred to Elizabeth’s children as his own family and had stood as guarantor to her daughter’s husband.943 Her son, Thomas Deadman, was Rutt’s live-in garden servant, aged about 30 at the time of the bankruptcy. When he was 21 he had received cash and £100 nominal in 4 per cent consols from his grandmother’s will.944 The records show that early in 1821 Deadman met with Rutt’s landlord (formerly his father’s and then his mother’s landlord) to take over the lease, presumably in order that there would be no time when the land would be untended and lose value. Deadman paid a total of £150 in three instalments, regaining his father and mother’s land. He occupied this land in Red Cow Lane, Hammersmith, until his death aged 59 in 1850.945 The land remained

941 In the matter of John Rutt, TNA, B 3/4264. 942 Morris, Men, women and property, pp. 370-1; C. Muldrew, The economy of obligation: the culture of credit and social relations (Basingstoke, 1998), p. 274; Earle, The making of the English middle class, pp. 192, 239. 943 In the matter of John Rutt, TNA, B 3/4264; Morris, Men, women and property, chapter 8. 944 In the matter of John Rutt, TNA, B 3/4264; Census returns, 1841, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/690/1. 945 Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1800-1820, LMA, MR/PLT/4859-76.

288

with the Deadmans for another generation, when part was taken for a railway, and long enough for Red Cow Lane to be Deadman’s Lane in the 1851 census.946

Bankruptcy appears not to have been a permanent financial problem for John Rutt. When administering his son’s estate Rutt was referred to as a ‘gentleman’, and in 1841, aged 81, he was a widower living on independent means and had a servant.947 Rutt benefitted from his marriage to Elizabeth but Thomas Deadman benefitted from Rutt’s bankruptcy. How Rutt made the transition out of bankruptcy is unknown, but it was a financial interval rather than a permanent catastrophe.

When proceedings began John Rutt had reached an age when his business should have progressed from the period of indebtedness into a time when he was saving for his old age. In Earle’s terms, Rutt had not made the transition in his 40s from being a net borrower to being a net lender.948 Several of his creditors were neighbours and would have been aware of his circumstances. They had extended credit and loans over several years and, as they were not calling in his debts, they must have been satisfied with his creditworthiness. When he was unable to repay the bond to Howard’s executors his reputation was questioned, the fragility of the network of credit relations within the business was revealed and it collapsed.949 Once breached the creditors would have wanted to make sure they received their dues to avoid the ripple effect from the loss of creditworthiness enveloping them.950 Rutt’s downfall may have come from the lack of diversification in his business, being dependent primarily on one product. How Rutt continued and was able to call himself a

946 Will of Thomas Dedman, 1850, TNA, PROB 11/2123; ‘A charge of robbery’, The Era, June 19, 1853, p. 14; Charing Cross Western Railway, London Gazette, 22791, (24 November 1863), p. 5928. 947 Administration of James Rutt, 1829, LMA, DL/C/501/100/1-3; Census returns, 1841, St Paul Hammersmith, TNA, HO 107/690/1. 948 Earle, The making of the English middle class, p. 144. 949 The recall of a mortgage through a will, and the subsequent financial collapse of a garden business in Fulham in 1787 was related in Rough, The operation of a small business. 950 Muldrew, The economy of obligation, pp. 3-4; 155-6.

289

gentleman a few years after the bankruptcy is difficult to explain, perhaps he relied on Elizabeth’s inherited wealth.

BUSINESS FAILURES - CONCLUSION In this chapter the incidence of bankruptcy and insolvency in the gardening industry has been assessed for the first time, and the pattern and extent in Fulham and Hammersmith is shown to mirror the business failures of gardeners in all London and in England and Wales. Fifty-five debtor gardeners taken to law to recover debts in 130 years is a low incidence of business failure in the gardening sector in Fulham and Hammersmith, especially as c. 65 per cent occurred in the difficult economic period after 1809 (figure 5.6). Those who were gardening on land newly converted from arable, shown in chapter 2, who had lower yields, higher rents and possibly borrowings, may have been more susceptible to failure. Gardeners with little diversification, or less multiple cropping, may also have been more vulnerable if difficult economic periods coincided with bad weather, but overall the results point to a robust industry.

PART 3, SUCCESSION

INTRODUCTION The complexities surrounding succession in a garden business in Fulham in the late eighteenth century were central to my previous study. The consequences of intestacy and an infant heir; inter-generational conflict and sibling rivalry; borrowing working capital from outside the family and interference by a fraudulent lawyer; together with simply bad timing, all played a part in the ultimate loss of a large part of a successful garden business.951 Very few gardening businesses have such extensive information

951 Rough, The operation of a small business.

290

available from a case in Chancery and another method is needed to provide a more general view of succession in commercial gardening.

Historians’ views of the inter-generational transfer of family businesses have changed over time. Family firms were considered not to survive beyond three generations, referred to as the ‘Buddenbrooks syndrome’.952 The characteristics of small firms were seen as including mismanagement, having to rely on growth through re-investing profits, being unprofitable, and having problems in finding suitable successors within the family.953 These factors, together with their lack of innovation, were seen as limiting national economic growth and attention became focussed on succession strategies in business.954 However, it was evident that not all businesses ended with the third generation and some continued over longer periods.955

Framing succession largely in terms of economic factors and maximising profit has been superseded by studies emphasising the needs and priorities of the family.956 The family was the ‘raison d’etre’ of the business, with strategies focussed on providing kin with employment and self-sufficiency.957 Alistair Owens suggests that inheritance strategies usually aimed at providing for the future of the family

952 Lorandini, ‘Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome’, p. 1005. 953 M. Casson, ‘The economics of the family firm’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 47:1 (1999), pp. 14-15. 954 S. Nenadic, ‘The small family firm in Victorian Britain’, Business History, 35:4 (1993), p. 86; M. Rose, ‘Beyond Buddenbrooks: the family firm and the management of succession in nineteenth century Britain’, in J. Brown and M. Rose, eds., Entrepreneurship, networks and modern business (Manchester, 1993), p. 127. 955 Lorandini, ’Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome’, pp. 1005-7. 956 N. Evans, ‘Inheritance, women, religion and education in early modern society as revealed by wills’, in P. Riden, ed., Probate records and the local community (Gloucester, 1985), p. 60; M. Daunton, ‘Inheritance and succession in the City of London in the nineteenth century’, Business History, 30:3 (1988), p. 270; Rose, ‘The family firm in British business, 1780-1914’; Owens, ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms’; Morris, Men, women and property; Nenadic, ‘The small family firm‘, pp. 86-114. 957 Owens, ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms’, pp. 23-4; H. Barker and M. Ishizu, ‘Inheritance and continuity in small family businesses during the early industrial revolution’, Business History, 54:2 (2012), pp. 228-9.

291

rather than the business, but this could create tension between the competing demands of primogeniture, the preservation of dynastic estates, and the support of family members.958 Different provisions were generally made for men and women. Men frequently received land or access to a trade while women were given enough to ensure their independence, either from rental income or an annuity, but the role of women in inheritance strategies was complex.959 In her study of probate documents from 1580 to 1720 Amy Erickson aptly summarises inheritance practices; ‘while the custom of primogeniture was influential it is a wholly inadequate description of the “grid of inheritance” among ordinary people’.960 Inheritance in the agricultural sector was influenced by the type of farming, with arable land or open field areas being less susceptible to division than wood-pasturing areas or farms in fenland.961 Partible inheritance need not mean dividing the existing landholding among more than one heir, rather land could be purchased for younger sons, widening the family landholding, or it may have been necessary for the heir to go into debt to fulfil bequests to other beneficiaries.962

Inheritance strategies depended on many factors: the wealth of the testator; the composition of the surviving family; the testator’s views on primogeniture and partible inheritance; continuing the business to provide income or selling everything to provide annuities; and previous inter vivos (lifetime) transfers. The following section considers how gardeners disposed of their estates, provided support for their family and the gardening dynasties that, in some cases, ensued.

958 Owens, ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms’, p. 37; D. Green and A. Owens, ‘Introduction’, in D. Green and A. Owens, eds., Family welfare: gender property and inheritance since the seventeenth century (2004), p. 20. 959 Green and Owens, Family welfare, p. 22; A. Erickson, Women and property in early modern England (1993), pp. 62, 64, 71; L. Davidoff and C. Hall, Family Fortunes: Men and women of the English middle class, 1780-1850 (1987), p. 211. 960 Erickson, Women and property, p. 78. 961 J. Goody, ‘Introduction’, in J. Goody, J. Thirsk and E.P. Thompson, eds., Family and inheritance : rural society in western Europe, 1200-1800 (Cambridge, 1978), p. 2; N. Evans, ‘Inheritance, women, religion and education in early modern society as revealed by wills’, in P. Riden, ed., Probate records and the local community (Gloucester, 1985), p. 63. 962 Evans, ‘Inheritance, women, religion and education’, p. 61; Erickson, Women and property, p. 67; Goody, ‘Introduction’, p. 2.

292

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES This part uses 109 wills that include evidence of the transfer of a garden business, proven between 1680 and 1858, in order to examine the succession strategies that were employed. A comparison of the distribution of wills containing a garden business transfer with all gardeners’ wills found for this study shows that they should provide a good sample as their incidence is generally representative of the dates proved of all wills (figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9 Comparison of the date proved of all gardeners’ wills with those wills including a business transfer, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194.

Unfortunately as the age at death is known for only 15 testators this is insufficient to consider the transfers in terms of the point in the life-cycle although the strategies concerning inheritance by minors are discussed. For clarity the wills are considered in conjunction with other documents, while the gardeners’ database constructed for

293

this study also provides family connections where businesses continued over more than one generation.963

The discussion begins with inter vivos transfers of businesses and is followed by consideration of the various strategies utilised to disperse estates: to the testator’s widow, including the concept of ‘caretaking’; to children; and finally to other family and non-kin recipients, or selling the business. The inclusion of contingency clauses covering succession over several generations is then examined and the issue of non- compliance with testators’ wishes is explored through a case study of the Harwood family. Finally businesses that lasted over several generations are considered.

SUCCESSION STRATEGIES Lifetime transfer Before examining how succession was presented in wills, the issue of inter vivos business or land transfers needs to be considered. Christine Churches argues that ‘most’ real estate, was passed on before death and was not mentioned in a will, and this may have been the case in Fulham parish.964 Only seven inter vivos transfers of part or all of the garden land were mentioned explicitly in wills although information about others has been found elsewhere. Some wills give the appearance that individuals had been excluded from inheriting, and their role needs to be established if succession in a business is to be understood fully.965 For example, Alexander Dancer, a market gardener in Fulham, appeared in his father’s will only in the context of being one of four executors. His two brothers received bequests of garden land and property but Alexander received nothing, nor was the family land in Fulham mentioned. In the land tax records, however, Alexander is seen to have taken over

963 Vann, ‘Wills and the family’, p. 347. 964 C. Churches, ‘Women and property in early modern England: a case study’, Social History, 23:2 (1998), p. 169. 965 Bonfield, ‘Contrasting sources’, pp. 645, 653-4, 658; Grannum and Taylor, Wills and probate records, pp. 13-14, 44, 64; A. Owens, ‘Property, gender and the life course: inheritance and family welfare provision in early nineteenth-century England’, Social History, 26:3 (2001), pp. 302, 308, 314.

294

the family’s Fulham land before his father’s death.966 John Brown’s will was more explicit, mentioning that he had already passed his garden business and leases to his son-in-law, while George Matyear wrote that he had retired after ‘many years’ in business as a market gardener and had already ‘given up’ the business to his son. Elizabeth Rench’s will provided for two of her daughters ‘having made equal provision for the said Daniel Fitch and Elizabeth his wife [nee Rench] … in my lifetime’ by passing the family garden to Fitch nine years previously.967 Only George Matyear’s age at death (68 years old) is known among these testators, but inter vivos transfers were probably more prevalent among elderly gardeners.968 The transition from gardening to living on rental income has already been demonstrated, while the heavy labour required on gardens may have been another factor promoting such transfers.969

The importance of the business supporting the family financially has been stressed by historians and the will of William Fielder Snr. makes clear that he believed he had both a continuing obligation to provide for his family and to prolong the business. He wrote: It is my wish … that my said son, William Fielder, should … become possessed of my house, land and premises, trade and business, … household goods and furniture … and carry on the said trade and business to and for his own use … but as common justice and equity make it equally incumbent on me to provide … for the other parts of my family, as well as for him, if my

966 Will of William Dancer, 1832, TNA, PROB 11/1795/267; Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1820-32, MR/PLT/4826-4837. There are gaps in this period in the Fulham land tax records. Alexander died in 1872 having already passed on his Fulham land to his son; Principal Probate Registry. Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England, 1872-3, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 8 February 2017. 967 Will of John Brown, 1809, TNA, PROB 11/1491/211; Will of George Matyear, 1832, TNA, PROB 11/1796/38; Will of Elizabeth Rench, 1800, TNA, PROB 11/1345/46; Lease, Elizabeth Rench to Daniel Fitch, 1791, HFA, DD/106/58/1. 968 Transcript of burials, All Saints, Fulham, (1832), LMA, DL/T/20/64, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed 24 August 2017. 969 Bonfield, ‘Contrasting sources’. p. 651.

295

said son should think proper to take to my said business … it must be on the following terms and conditions.970 The inheritance of the business was dependent on his son providing an annual income of £30 from the profits of the garden for his mother, and cash bequests to his sister and three step-sisters when they reached 21. Fielder had accepted responsibility for the future well-being of his step-daughters in their minority and bequeathed this obligation to his son. These responsibilities did not extend beyond his immediate family, albeit in part a step-family. Within his family, bequests to his son were larger than to his daughter, and her share was twice that of her step-sisters’. Strategies implementing similar contingent clauses were present in other wills, but Fielder was the only one who expressed his obligations so clearly.

For a business to continue the owner needed to identify a ‘competent heir’.971 Table 5.7 shows the initial recipient(s) of the garden businesses. In Fulham and Hammersmith garden businesses were passed on predominantly within the nuclear family, mostly to the testator’s wife and/or adult children, as minors were mentioned explicitly in only seven wills. The wills contain 48 different family structures combining the testator’s wife being present or absent, with varying permutations of sons and daughters, or none, creating a complex matrix of possible strategies.972 They blend the extent to which testators did or did not attempt to produce an equitable distribution among their family, with maintaining the economic viability of the business, or opting for its outright sale.973 The results should be viewed with caution as they are based on 56 per cent of all gardeners’ wills and it is not known whether the remaining 44 per cent, who chose not to refer to disposal of their businesses, represented a group of gardeners with specific preferences about succession.

970 Will of William Fielder, 1800, LMA, DL/C/ B/005/MS09172/185 Will number 186. 971 Owens, ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms’, p. 38, Casson, ‘The economics of the family firm’, pp. 10-23. 972 The 196 wills include those of 7 widows and one wife who had garden businesses. 973 Goody, ‘Introduction’, p. 2.

296

Table 5.7 Recipients of gardening business transfers in gardener’s wills, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1680-1858.

Total % total (excl. Number of testators Recipient wills business not Without % no Mentioning % no mentioned) a wife wife no children children Wife unconditionally 18 16.5 11 61.1 Wife for life 18 16.5 2 5.6

Wife + 7 6.4 children Wife till children reach 2 1.8 majority Son(s) 21 19.3 14 66.7

Daughter(s) 9 8.3 8 88.9 /son-in-law Son(s) & 5 4.6 4 80.0 daughter(s) Other relations 8 7.3 8 100.0 8 100.0 Other 4 3.7 3 75.0 2 50.0 Business sold 13 11.9 9 32.2 4 23.1 Some arrangements 4 3.7 2 0 pre-date will Total 109 48 27

Garden not 87 29 40 mentioned Sources: TNA, PROB 11; LMA, DL/C/0441-0508; LMA, DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194.

297

Widows Views vary on the autonomy and agency of wives inheriting a business. From her study of the wills of metalworkers in Birmingham and Sheffield for 1700-1800 Maxine Berg considers women had proprietorial autonomy, and widows were frequently independent economic actors.974 Christine Churches agrees: based on her microhistory of property transfer in Whitehaven, between 1660 and 1750 she comments, ‘These women are not just a backwater through which property made its sluggish way before finally returning to the mainstream in the hands of a male heir’.975 With more caution Erickson argues that while ‘dying husbands entrusted wives with far more property and financial responsibility than the law required, at the same time a man very rarely went so far as to allow his widow complete discretion upon death’.976 Owens goes so far as to suggest that widows were limited by their husband’s will to ‘caretaking’, acting as ‘intermediaries in a system of “delayed” intergenerational transfer’, while another strategy found by Hannah Barker was for widows to run a business after their husband’s death with adult sons as ‘junior partners’. 977

The findings in this study resonate with the views of Berg and Churches. The largest proportion of businesses (41 per cent) were left by testators to their wives, amounting to 75 per cent of testators whose wives were still alive: higher than the 52 per cent of businesses transferred to wives found by Barker and Ishizu through trade directories during the early industrial revolution in Liverpool and Manchester.978 Gardeners’ wives were left the business in three ways: unconditionally; for the period of their lifetime; or jointly with another person. Unconditional bequests occurred in 16.5 per cent of cases, ranging across the whole period, and 83 per cent of these wives (15)

974 M. Berg, ‘Women’s property and the industrial revolution’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 24:2 (1993), 233-50. 975 Churches, ‘Women and property’, p. 178. 976 Erickson, Women and property, p. 19. 977 Owens, ‘Property, gender and the life course’, p. 310; H. Barker, The business of women: female enterprise and urban development in Northern England, 1760-1830 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 114-7. 978 Barker & Ishizu, ‘Inheritance and continuity’, p. 234.

298

were also the sole executrix. Children were not mentioned in 61 per cent of these wills.

The subsequent outcome of these unconditional transfers is generally not known as only five wills from the widows have been found. Hannah Gray had kept the land for 14 years till her death, but her will showed she had rented out much of the garden land, which then passed to her niece.979 In 1841 Jane Burchell divided her land amongst her three sons and two daughters in approximately equal value, but none were gardeners and the land was rented out.980 Jane Howells also rented out all the land she was left in 1822 and left most of her estate to her sister.981 As discussed earlier in this chapter Elizabeth Deadman took over her husband’s garden business for two years before she remarried, continuing in business with her husband, John Rutt.982 Finally, Henry Martin left the business to his wife in 1841 and she continued running the largest market garden in Hammersmith for over 20 years.983 These women took different paths as widows; why they chose a particular route is not known but these, and other diverse decisions discussed below, contribute towards the ‘considerable heterogeneity in [the] industry’.984

Another favoured method of disposition of garden businesses was to the testator’s wife for her lifetime (16.5 per cent). Only two wills in this group made no mention of children. The second generation strategies outlined by the testator varied considerably. On the widow’s death 11 businesses went to sons, the daughters present in eight of these families did not receive a business share. In another five cases daughters were to succeed their mother: in one where there were no brothers;

979 Will of Christopher Gray, 1764, TNA, PROB 11/903/366; Will of Hannah Gray, 1778, TNA, PROB 11/1040/170. This ended 80 years of the Gray family gardening in Fulham. 980 Will of Jane Burchell, 1841, TNA, PROB 11/1942/110. Some of Jane Burchell’s land had been occupied earlier by Hannah Gray. 981 Will of Jane Howells, 1828, TNA, PROB 11/1738/281. 982 Will of Thomas Deadman, 1806, TNA, PROB 11/1452/210. 983 Will of Henry Martin, 1841, TNA, PROB 11/1942/221. 984 Casson, ‘The economics of the family firm’, p. 12.

299

in another a brother had already been provided for; and in three other cases brother(s) and sister(s) inherited jointly. Marsh considered most widows sub-let some land but continued to run part of the business themselves and this may have been an unseen strategy employed by some women in Fulham.985

Other strategies that included the testator’s wife were more complex. Four wills included mother and son(s) and/or daughters inheriting together. Only two mothers were designated as caretaking the business until children reached their majority: in one family a son was to inherit the business, although he had sisters; in the other family 3 daughters and 2 sons were to receive an equal inheritance. For the remaining estates the instructions indicated that the business was to be sold, or should go to male relatives, and in one such case the testator’s daughter was passed over in favour of his grandson. In this latter group the second generation strategy was mainly to keep the business within the family and predominantly for men to inherit.

The wills of a further five widows who had garden businesses specified their disposition. Considering these more closely, four made equitable dispersals between children, particularly when allowing for married daughters who probably had already received a marriage portion, but sons were given the business more often with daughters receiving capital or income.986 The fifth and final distribution made by a widow was more complicated as all Jane Edwards’ children were minors and she left the garden in trust with her executors. She had been running the business, with the help of her children, for less than five years since her husband’s death but must have considered that her eldest son and daughter were capable of running the business themselves with oversight from the executors. Jane detailed how the business was to be operated in order that her children had a continuing income in their minority:

985 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 506. 986 Will of Elizabeth Eayres, 1806, TNA, PROB 11/1444/107; Will of Sarah Lewis, 1806, TNA, PROB 11/1438/111; Will of Elizabeth Smith, 1813, LMA, DL/C/452/156. Will of Elizabeth Rench, 1800, TNA, PROB 11/1345/46.

300

John or Jemima shall account to my executors for all things done on the ground and shall pay all monies into their hands as they receive for any thing on the ground or premises the same as they would to me if I was living.987 Her will was a heartfelt plea from a mother who was trying to maintain her four children into adulthood, keeping the business running to provide the means to do so. Jane ‘beg[s]’ the executors to take on this task asking that: if business is neglected by my son or daughter and things appear to grow worse my executors shall have full power to put up to sale to the best or highest bidder the house ground and all that belongs to me and beg of my good landlord J:S:Andrews Esquire to transfer the lease of the premises to my executors for the good of my four children.988 Jane Edwards seems not to have had any connection to the executors, and the tone of the will suggests she was trying to provide for her children in the absence of any family support.989 Eventually the children were to receive equal shares, but the method of distribution for the assets was not given.

Children The second largest group of heirs were the children of the testator who were bequeathed 32.2 per cent of garden businesses, with most to sons directly (19.3 per cent). Sons inherited the businesses alone or with their mothers, sisters, and/or brothers. Fourteen sons were in sole receipt: in 6 of these cases they had brothers who did not inherit part of the Fulham parish garden business, although in one family a second son received a farm in Surrey and a third son a garden business in Battersea. In another family one son was given the garden and another received their urban cowkeeping business, showing again the diversity of some businesses. Sons not in receipt of a business were given cash, shares or property, which may have been equivalent to the value of the business, but sons in four families received only a

987 Will of Jane Edwards, 1805, TNA, PROB 11/1420/238. 988 Will of Jane Edwards, 1805, TNA, PROB 11/1420/238. 989 Will of Jane Edwards, 1805, TNA, PROB 11/1420/238.

301

token amount and these could have been in recognition of a previous inter vivos settlement as Lloyd Bonfield suggests.990 In some instances one son inherited the garden but had to pay his siblings the equivalent to their share of the business over a period of time. Daniel Fitch gave his business to his son Nathaniel: a valuation was made and Nathaniel had to give the executors £100 each year, to be divided among his surviving four brothers and two sisters, until their share in the valuation amount was reached.991 When a son inherited and his mother was still alive, provision was usually made for her upkeep and shelter either within the family home, through an annuity, or by the heir paying her a regular amount. Six businesses were inherited jointly by 2 sons, and one by 3 sons, with 5 businesses going jointly to sons and daughters. Considering all the options for receiving a business, 41 businesses were to be inherited only by sons in the long term, comprising 58 per cent where the testator mentioned sons.

Eight gardens were passed to daughters or their husbands, and in 4 of these families there were sons. One daughter was caretaking until the youngest of 5 siblings reached 21 and then it was to be divided in an unspecified manner. In another family where no sons were mentioned, one daughter received the business and another daughter the garden land that was already being developed for housing. The garden businesses were clearly bequeathed to sons-in-law in 3 cases: in one of these, 4 sons, who probably had non-gardening occupations, were to receive only cash and goods; in another 2 daughters were given cash, although the small amount given to one suggests she had already received her portion; in the third the son-in-law died before the will was proved and the final outcome is unknown. Evidence on the extent to which there had been lifetime transfers of businesses is limited. Four wills stated that businesses had already been transferred, one to a daughter and her husband, one to a son-in-law, and one to a son. In the final case a son was said to have ‘recently

990 Bonfield, ‘Contrasting sources’, p. 658. 991 Will of Daniel Fitch, 1818, TNA, PROB 11/1609/137.

302

bought’ the garden.992 He and his brother then received equal amounts of £1,400 in consols, but their sister was to receive dividends for life on the same amount of consols and then her brothers were to share the principal.

Dispositions outside the nuclear family and selling up Almost a quarter of wills making business transfers had no children mentioned at all. Seven businesses stayed within the family through succession to brothers, sisters or nephews. Two businesses went to a partner, one giving a profit share to the testator’s wife and one to be inherited by a son on the partner’s death, while one business was bequeathed to an unknown gardener.

Morris found that keeping a business running was an ‘option suited to a minority of families’ with most preferring to sell-up, but this proved not to be the case for the garden businesses.993 Thirteen testators, predominantly (10) in the nineteenth century, opted for the business being sold and the proceeds were to be an equal division among all living children in all but two instances. Perhaps the sums that could be raised by selling the lease to developers were considered too large to refuse. As these represent only 11.9 per cent of wills it supports Barker and Ishizu’s findings that small family businesses continued, rather than Owens’s view that the disposal of firms was ‘an essential precondition to partible inheritance’; gardeners had found a variety of ways in which to share out an estate while perpetuating the family business.994

Long-term succession While Owens’s evidence from Stockport wills for 1800-57 shows that dynastic businesses were not a goal, Barker and Ishizu’s study highlights that some testators

992 Will of George Nickels, 1827, LMA, DL/C/496/126. 993 Morris, Men, women and property, p. 123. 994 Barker and Ishizu, ‘Inheritance and continuity’, p. 229; Owens, ‘Property, gender and the life course’, pp. 306, 311; idem, ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms’, pp. 32-3.

303

made provisions for the business to continue over several generations.995 The death of children could have affected the implementation of testator’s wishes and the desire to avoid uncertainty could lead to complicated provisions being made.996 Fifteen wills (13.8 per cent) in this study contained contingency clauses in which the testator attempted to control what happened over several generations, including requiring the inheritor of the business to make payments to siblings to provide an equal share of the estate, but in only one instance was the business entailed through the line of the eldest son. It was to pass to a female only if there were no male relations remaining, and he was the sole testator to specify that the executors should oversee the business in his wife’s lifetime.997

Compliance with the testator’s wishes Wills show intentions not actions; they had a legal authority but the instructions may not have been carried out.998 Where businesses continued contrary to the testator’s wishes Barker and Ishizu attribute such deviations to a change in circumstances, either economic, financial or familial, between the writing and proving of the will.999 This also happened in Fulham and Hammersmith. For example, William Burchell had left his business to his nephew and former apprentice, Matthew, for life and then to Matthew’s sons William and George. Thirty years later when Matthew died George had pre-deceased him and William was an eminent plant collector, not a gardener, and most of the land went to Matthew’s wife.1000 The case of the Harwood family that follows also shows how an executor could override the testators’ plans for the business.

995 Barker and Ishizu, ‘Inheritance and continuity’, p. 236; Owens, ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms’, p. 41. 996 Evans, ‘Inheritance, women, religion and education’, p. 63. 997 Will of Richard Prince, 1771, TNA, PROB 11/963/48. 998 E.P. Thompson, ‘The grid of inheritance: a comment’, in J. Goody, J. Thirsk and E.P. Thompson, eds., Family and inheritance: rural society in Western Europe 1200-1800 (1978), p. 328; Evans, ‘Inheritance, women, religion and education’, p. 66. 999 Barker and Ishizu, ‘Inheritance and continuity’, pp. 231, 236. 1000 Will of William Burchell, 1800, TNA, PROB 11/1336/278; Will of Matthew Burchell, 1830, TNA, PROB 11/1772/1.

304

THE HARWOOD FAMILY BUSINESS The Harwood family appear only fleetingly among the gardeners in Fulham, but for a few years in the early nineteenth century there are rich sources of evidence for this family. Erickson’s comment that high mortality led to ‘unexpected channels of diffusion’ is particularly appropriate for the Harwood garden.1001 The happenstance of several family deaths in rapid succession presented an executor with the opportunity to take an alternative course of action to the testator’s wishes, resulting in the future of the garden business being completely opposite to his intentions. It is another case where the interpretation of individual sources in isolation can give an erroneous view of events.

William Harwood’s medium-sized garden first appeared in the Fulham land tax records in 1820 when he was about 69 years old.1002 In 1827, when he wrote his will, his son Robert and family were living with him.1003 Four months earlier he had transferred £2,300 nominal 3 per cent consols into a joint account in the names of Robert and his uncle Charles, and this major asset did not appear in William’s will.1004 The transfer probably marks the time when Robert took over the family business. William died in June 1829 leaving government securities to his daughter and son-in-law, Ann and George Walker, and everything else to Robert.1005

At the time of his father’s death Robert, aged 36, was ‘in a very weak state of health’. He wrote his will a month later and died within the week, leaving a young

1001 Erickson, Women and property, p. 63. 1002 Register of burials, All Saints, Fulham, 1829, LMA, DL/T/20/59; Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1820-31, LMA, MR/PLT/4826-36. In the land tax a ‘William Howard’ appears in the same place in the land tax, after Bagley, from 1791 but it is not established that this was the same person. 1003 Will of William Harwood, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1759/356. 1004 Stock Ledger: Consols £3% ‘HA-HE’, Pt 1, 1827-1837, BEA, AC27/2027. 1005 Will of William Harwood, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1759/356; No. 116842, William Harwood, of Fulham, gardener, 1829, Bank of England will extracts 1717-1845, Society of Genealogists, 96707.

305

family, his wife, Ann, aged 26 and three daughters aged 7, 5 and 3.1006 Ann Harwood and brother-in-law, George Walker, were his executors.1007 Robert’s instructions were that, with the exception of his securities and household goods, everything including his ‘implements of husbandry’ and his ‘stock in trade’, was to be sold as soon as possible and the proceeds to be placed into ‘public funds’ under the control of the executors.1008

A month after probate was granted the £2,300 consols were transferred into Robert’s executors’ account. Robert intended that the proceeds would be used to fulfil the financial provisions described for the lifetime care of his dependents. His mother was to receive £40 per annum during her lifetime, but she died within a few months, and his sister, Sarah Buxton, was to receive the interest from £300 3 per cent consols for her lifetime.1009 All the residual dividends went to Ann for the ‘maintenance, education and cloathing’ of their children, or to place them in a ‘profession, business or employment’.1010 This indicates that Robert expected his daughters to earn their own living, and he had been teaching his eldest to write.1011 Robert’s uncle Charles died in 1832 and his executor George Walker died in 1833, leaving Ann in sole control.1012 By mid-1834 she had liquidated the executor’s account, even though Sarah Buxton still had a lifetime entitlement to income from the estate and did not die until 1843.1013 Whether other provisions were made for her is unknown.

1006 Will of Robert Harwood, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1764/250; Register of burials, All Saints, Fulham, 1829, LMA, DL/T/20/59. 1007 Will of Robert Harwood, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1764/250. 1008 Will of Robert Harwood, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1764/250. 1009 Register of burials, All Saints, Fulham, 1829, LMA, DL/T/20/59; Will of Robert Harwood, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1764/250. 1010 Will of Robert Harwood, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1764/250. 1011 Will of Robert Harwood, 1829, TNA, PROB 11/1764/250. 1012 Register of burials, St. Luke, Chelsea, 1830-33, LMA, P74/LUK/261, www.ancestry.co.uk, last accessed, 30 July 2017. 1013 England and Wales, Civil registration death index 1837-1915, www.freebmd.org.uk, last accessed 6 November 2016; Stock Ledger: Consols £3% ‘HA-HE’, Pt 1, 1827-1837, BEA, AC27/2027.

306

The handling of the business was completely contrary to Robert’s wishes. A garden business in Fulham was desirable property: organising its sale did not take over a year, and Ann seems to have been delaying taking any steps towards this end. The property was not sold and Ann replaced her father-in-law in the land tax records; she was running the garden and continued to do so for the next 20 years.1014 She appeared in the 1851 census, aged 48, as a ‘market gardener’ employing 7 men, 5 women and 2 boys on 18 acres. By the time of the 1861 census Ann had disappeared from the records and it is possible that she died, or re-married, in the 1850s.1015

Ann had outlived her immediate family who, with the exception of her sister-in-law, had all died within four years. What had made her ignore her husband’s last wishes? Barker and Ishizu found that more small businesses continued for another generation than had been thought previously. They suggest this resulted from there being insufficient capital accumulated to provide an income from investments, and that may have been Ann Harwood’s situation.1016 The £2,450 in 3 per cent consols would have produced an income of £75 10s 0d per annum; after Sarah Buxton’s payment was made, Ann was left with £64 10s 0d. There would also have been additional income from the proceeds of the sale. Taking as a comparison a contemporary valuation of a nearby garden, Ann could have sold the business for upwards of £2,250 which when added to the other consols would have given her a total annual income of about £150.1017

Paradoxically, despite educating his daughters and planning for their economic independence, Robert did not want Ann to run his business. Perhaps his provision of income for her lifetime was to make her a gentlewoman. This would have been a higher status but at a lower standard of living than provided by the business that had

1014 Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1820-31, LMA, MR/PLT/4826 -36. 1015 Census returns, 1851, Fulham, TNA, HO 107/1471. 1016 Barker & Ishizu, ‘Inheritance and continuity’ , p. 239. 1017 Particulars and conditions of sale, 1825, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328/92. If Ann had sold the garden in October 1829 she would have paid c. £90 for £100 nominal of the 3% consols. The Gentleman’s Magazine, 99:2 (1829), p. 384.

307

accrued the investment in consols for her father-in-law. A market garden in Fulham with average quality land at the end of the eighteenth century could produce a profit after costs of around £70 per acre, or up to £150 per acre for the best land.1018 By the mid-nineteenth century the profit could have been over £150 per acre, giving a net income of between £1,200 and £2,500 per annum from 18 acres.1019 Ann must have known this and made the decision to take the risk of continuing in the business, opting for the potential to earn a great deal more for her daughters’ future than that offered by the security of living on dividends. Ann Harwood trusted her own judgement and skill in providing a substantial income for her family, and became a market gardener for over 20 years. Only by using a microhistorical approach has it been possible to establish that this happened.

DYNASTIES John Harvey argued that ‘gardening … tends to run in families’, sometimes through nephews and with a name change, and a ‘strictly finite number of kinships, rather than families in the ordinary sense’ but ‘In the great majority of cases, the nurseries … belonged to the same family through several generations’.1020 This aligns with Lorandini’s ideas of business inheritance where the family adopts, ‘dynamic and flexible boundaries for both “family” and “business”,’ rather than a strictly lineal view.1021 Continuity in a business led to a transfer of knowledge as shown for some families in chapter 3.1022 Casson considers that the knowledge base in farming was ‘highly specific, involving micro-climate, the quality of the soil [and] the most suitable crops’, and gardens could benefit similarly from dynastic business transfers.1023

1018 J. Middleton, View of the agriculture in the county of Middlesex (1798), pp. 263-6. 1019 S. Hibberd, Floral World (1858), p.158 cited in Matheson, Common ground, p. 86. 1020 Harvey, Early nurserymen, pp. 10, 132. 1021 Lorandini, ‘Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome’, p. 1007. 1022 Harvey, Early nurserymen, p. 34. 1023 Casson, ‘The economics of family firms’, p. 16.

308

Succession strategies in wills show 84 per cent of testators left instructions for their garden business to continue in the hands of their family. Wealth in gardening was closely linked to being part of a trans-generational family business. Of those individuals shown in part 1 of this chapter to have wealth of £250 or more, 66 per cent were from ‘dynasties’ - those families with two or more generations in gardening.1024 Overall, wealth had increased over the period but the mean wealth of dynastic gardeners (£2,713) was higher than gardeners with only a single occurrence of the family in the gardeners’ database (£1,553), even though 35 per cent in the dynastic group died in the eighteenth century compared to 28 per cent of the non- dynastic group, a factor that should have benefitted the wealth of the non-dynastic group.

Nathaniel Rench, a major character in the gardening industry in Fulham, ran his garden business for many years and was over 90 years old when he wrote his will.1025 This garden business shows the characteristics outlined by Harvey and Lorandini. The business can be traced from Thomas Rench appearing in the court rolls as a gardener in 1711, occupying property in Fulham, through two more generations including a switch to the female line in 1791, and then through the Fitch family to sisters Maria Fitch and Elizabeth Clarke, market gardeners in 1861, some 150 years later.1026 Other examples of family businesses continuing over several generations have been highlighted previously: names including Millet, Dancer, Lee, Matyear, Bagley, Bower, Gray, Rough and Lewis, have entries over a long period in the database, but many more passed through briefly. What is clear is that once a business became established, and the first generation passed from the borrowing period into a stage of saving surplus income or re-investing it in the business, as described by Earle and Morris, then the greater was the potential for the next generation to

1024 Based on same surname and reference to the gardeners’ names database. 1025 It seems possible, but unproven, that his father Thomas was related to Thomas Wrench of Paradise Gardens in Oxford in late seventeenth century. Harvey, Early nurserymen, pp. 62-3. 1026 Will of Nathaniel Rench, 1783, TNA, PROB 11/1099/391; C. Feret, Extracts from the court rolls of the manor of Fulham, Vol. 2, 1603-1747 (undated), HFA, F352.01 FER, p. 549; 1861 Census returns, Fulham, TNA, RG 9/27-29.

309

succeed in the industry. As a business perpetuated across the generations good soil quality and fixed capital accumulated. The profitability of gardening, demonstrated in part 1 of this chapter, suggests that some gardeners had enough surplus income to invest in sufficient land to divide among several heirs. Chapter 2 has shown the expansion of the acreage under gardens and these factors point to an industry where dynastic succession need not cause economic stagnation.

Not all families chose to stay in gardening and adapted instead to changing markets. In chapter 3 it was shown how in the third and fourth generation the Plaw family moved into hothouse building. In this chapter, mention was made of how in the third (possibly fourth) generation William Burchell became a plant collector; the Poupart family went into wholesale fruit supplies and the business remains in existence today; and my previous study showed how after three generations, and over a 100 years of gardening, one branch of the Rough family moved into retail and wholesale greengrocery for a further 100 years.1027 These families took advantage of changing markets and used their knowledge to move into allied trades, a route Jane Humphries identifies, while others used the future potential of the land for housing and to move up the social scale.1028 The practice among gardeners who had more than one son was sometimes to set up several in their own garden business. It has been shown that bankruptcy need not be the end of a family business; if the business had been divided among two or more people then if one line failed there could be others who passed the family business on to the next generation. Where sons had aptitude, the training and advantage given by their parents meant they had a better chance of being successful.

1027 Our heritage, http://poupartproduce.com/company/heritage/, last accessed 24 February 2017; Rough family papers, private collection. 1028 J. Humphries, ‘English apprenticeships: A neglected factor in the first industrial revolution’, in P. David and M. Thomas, eds., The economic future in historical perspective (Oxford, 2003), p. 96.

310

SUCCESSION - CONCLUSION The aim of most testators who made their wishes known in their will was to keep their businesses operating, with priority given to keeping them within the family. Gardeners employed many different strategies to apportion their estates, favouring wives and sons when present. It is evident that wives were not usually viewed as caretakers and were expected to continue running the businesses, and be capable of being successful. Half of all wives were made sole executrix confirming earlier studies that testators trusted in their wife’s ability to run the business and make appropriate provision for their children.1029 While evidence of women operating garden businesses is fragmentary, Churches remarked that it is such ‘stray scraps of evidence [that] suggest women’s close involvement’ in a business.1030 Sons were preferred over daughters but in some instances only one was given the business and any brothers were given approximately equal financial amounts or occasionally another business. Inter vivos transfers meant that some children established a business in their parent’s lifetime but evidence of this is sparse and dispersal of freehold land may not appear in a will thus this is not an entirely complete picture of estate distributions. Providing several children with a part of the business reduced the risk of the family business failing through financial or demographic reasons. Very few daughters were given a garden business outright. Gender equality had two opposing dimensions in succession strategies: wives were the predominant inheritors of businesses but sons were much more likely to inherit the business after their mother’s death than daughters. Generally, the wills allocated wealth among siblings on a ‘remarkable equitable basis’ but gendered by businesses to sons and income to daughters, as Erickson found.1031

1029 Marsh, The gardens and gardeners, p. 466; Churches, ‘Women and property’, p. 177; K. Honeyman, ‘Doing business with gender: service industries and British business history’, Business History Review, 81:3 (2007), p. 476. 1030 Churches, ‘Women and property’, p. 177. 1031 Erickson, Women and property, pp. 19, 78.

311

CHAPTER 5 - GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Gardeners had a range of wealth, sufficient for some to have a comfortable living as part of the middling sort while a few had accrued greater wealth from gardening. Around 1780 gardening ranked in the middle of ten occupations when the sums they insured are used to represent wealth. A quarter had enough surplus income to invest in houses and government securities and produce additional income; the inference to be made is that there was a range of profitability in gardening. Insolvency or bankruptcy affected a very few gardeners, and failure in gardening correlated with periods of difficulty for all businesses.

The wealth of some businesses demonstrates the benefit of trans-generational transfer, others fared well enough for their business to continue on a smaller scale, but many names came and went from Fulham and Hammersmith gardens in one generation. Initially wives were the preferred heir of a business, but after their death wealth was distributed equitably, although the tendency was for male heirs to be given the garden businesses and women an equivalent monetary amount. Garden dynasties could last for several generations, some very successfully. The expansion of the gardening industry in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries does not support the view that the dynastic family firms restricted economic development.

312

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

Nothing is left today to show that the parish of Fulham was once an important area of commercial gardening, but the findings in this study confirm Joan Thirsk’s belief that a more nuanced history of the industry can emerge if an in-depth approach is applied to research. The aim of this dissertation has been to respond to her appeal by addressing the fundamental questions, of ‘What was a gardener?’ and ‘What was a garden business?’. This necessitated adopting a microhistorical methodology, an innovative approach in the examination of commercial gardening. Additionally, primary quantitative and qualitative sources, previously unused in this context, have been located. Together these form a robust base from which to examine the issues in this thesis, the first devoted entirely to the history of commercial gardening since Atherall’s study in 1976.1032

The first topic considered is the changing spatial distribution and acreage of gardens in the parish. By producing land-use maps to the same scale and legend, it has been possible to trace statistically the trend of expansion of acreage, and then the initial indications of contraction in the industry, between 1747 and 1843/5. Indeed this is the first time that a graphic representation of the land-use given in the Fulham and Hammersmith tithe apportionment schedules has ever been seen. The discussion of the factors underlying the contestations between competing land uses highlights the interaction between soil types, land values, suburban expansion, brickmaking and transport developments. Changes in the locations of commercial gardens were associated with the varying outcomes of these contestations. Early expansion of gardens replaced arable and grassland almost entirely in Fulham and on the better soils in south Hammersmith. Later gardens in Hammersmith moved northwards

1032 P. Atherall, The displacement of market gardening around London by urban growth, 1745-1939, unpublished MLitt dissertation, University of Cambridge, (1976).

313

taking former arable sites, while plot sizes between new urban developments were reduced. In Fulham, also, housing encroached on the edges of gardens, but to a much lesser degree than in Hammersmith. This new evaluation demonstrates the resilience of the garden industry in the face of pressures from urban development and other agricultural needs. While this examination of the competition for land was resolved in terms of the descriptions of land use as given on the maps, subsequent chapters demonstrate that the framing as discrete land uses is over-simplified and masks the combination of different uses found in actual gardens.

Examination of the occupational structure of the industry has been approached through several sources (chapter 3). Apprentices based in several livery companies, not only the Gardeners’ Company, formed a very small part of the workforce and the customary artisanal structure was largely absent in gardening from the mid- seventeenth century. The continuing presence of apprentices in families with larger businesses, however, suggests that this institution provided an important social and commercial role. Additionally, the absence of livery company control over the labour force may have benefitted the development of the industry.

Analysis of the parish registers at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and in the early nineteenth century, provides the first tentative estimate of the relative size of the gardening industry in the parish, with skilled labour amounting to approximately 16 per cent of the workforce, but with an unknown additional number of garden labourers. The higher proportion (33 per cent) of gardeners in the Fulham residents having a clandestine marriage in the first half of the eighteenth century suggests that people running garden businesses were a large proportion of the middling sort in the parish. The presence of a small group of husbandmen and farmers in the first half of the eighteenth century supports the view that both gardening and other agricultural cultivation continued, but the predominance of a limited range of customary terms for occupations, and in vital registers and wills, limits their value for consideration of further specialisation in gardening.

314

Tracing terms describing garden occupations shows that the variety of descriptors utilised depended on the source being consulted. Generally the records created by the parish and government relied on a few customary terms for much longer than those generated commercially. The transition from agriculture to gardening, and then to further specialisation, appears to have caused uncertainty among clerks and administrators. This is most evident in the analysis of the three censuses for 1841 to 1861 where the fluctuating perceptions of gardening in Fulham by census officials resulted in incongruous changes in the numbers of agricultural labourers and garden labourers in each decade. There is evidence of mediation by enumerators in differentiating between agricultural and gardening labourers, and between gardeners and market gardeners, in 1841 and 1861. The more accurate census data for 1851 show 810 men and 302 women in Fulham and Hammersmith occupied in gardening: 66 per cent were labourers; 27 per cent skilled gardeners; and 6 per cent employers.1033 From this analysis it becomes clear that assessing the size and structure of the gardening industry from only one census could produce inaccurate results. Similarly, the choice of source to examine dual occupations in gardening could significantly bias results. Of the dual occupations examined, 67 per cent represent clarification of the variety of occupations pursued by a garden employer. Taking a microhistorical approach has identified the diversity of occupations a garden employer could undertake in pursuit of earning a living.

Chapter 4 has shown that few gardeners were landowners, confirming previous findings that most gardeners rented their land. The principal landowner in the parishes was the bishop of London and there were approximately 100 landlords of garden land in the tithe apportionment schedules in 1843/5, with around 50 per cent of garden land in the hands of six landlords in Fulham and eight in Hammersmith. The small minority of gardeners who rented directly from the bishop of London benefitted commercially from rents that were below market level, and at times from

1033 Table 3.4.

315

the paternalistic approach to administration. Gardeners often rented land from several landlords including family members. The tithe apportionment schedules and other sources reveal the mixture of types of land occupied by gardeners from which their diversity of production can be inferred; gardeners did not only garden. Various quantities of fruit, vegetables, and flowers were grown in addition to other agricultural crops, animals being reared and other services being provided. This was not just an early phase in the transition to specialist gardening but persisted into the nineteenth century, and appears to have been adopted, especially by larger businesses, both to minimise risk and to take advantage of changing demand.

There was a range of wealth across all gardeners (chapter 5), as well as between gardeners with the same occupations. A quarter of gardeners leaving wills had three or more investment properties and a third had investments in government securities. While it is possible that 70 per cent of gardeners’ wills were unlikely to represent accurately their holdings of government securities at the time of death, they probably represent the amount possessed at some time in their life. Gardeners also had wealth in freehold land or in their leases and these values rose as the prospects for urban development increased. The absence of this element in wills undervalues their wealth. This suggests that most garden businesses could produce sufficient profit for employers to have a comfortable living in the middling sort and for some to achieve a higher level of wealth. Few gardeners became insolvent or bankrupt until the early nineteenth century when the number grew in line with the national rise both generally and for gardeners, but overall gardening was a resilient industry. Some businesses may have been run only by family members but most employed additional labour, some regular and some seasonal. Businesses were predominantly left to widows or sons, the intention being for the business to continue operating. Given the growth of the industry for over two centuries, the presence of gardening dynasties cannot be seen as having restricted the development of the commercial gardening in Fulham and Hammersmith. Being part of a trans-generational business gave better opportunities for future wealth accumulation through inheriting fixed

316

assets, particularly land, the transfer of knowledge and, for some, a family support network.

This study shows that there is considerable potential for the detailed research of the industry requested by Joan Thirsk, and its results contribute to the wider debates in agricultural and business history. One important topic is how gardening continued to take place in the open fields, and its relationship to the enclosure of other areas to accommodate gardening. This requires an approach over a much longer time period than was feasible in this study. Future research would benefit from a larger sample size which could be achieved through consideration of gardening in the open fields in Fulham, Battersea and Chelsea. There are other findings in this study which could now benefit from being examined across several gardening parishes; for example, the predominance of gardeners in clandestine marriage registers, and the family focus for apprenticeships, while further evidence from Bank of England accounts using names from the gardeners’ database would improve the evidence for profitability. Very little attention has been given in this study to the social aspects of gardeners, the roles they undertook in the community, their level of literacy, or social networks. The businesses in Fulham were built on a network of people, in particular families linked through marriage. The importance of these connections in the parish has been touched upon - for instance in apprenticeship networks, and in my previous study in the provision of credit. Consideration of more flexible ideas of family businesses would benefit from the construction of extensive family networks to provide a framework for interpretation.

The questions of, ‘What was a gardener?’ and ‘What was a gardening business?’ formed the starting point for this research. Initially the intention had been to focus on the production of fruit and vegetables for human consumption, the assumption being that this meant market gardening. It quickly become evident that this viewpoint was too simplistic: the people producing fruit and vegetables for market ranged from

317

nurserymen to farmer-gardeners, from large-scale growers to small producers, and their range of products was greater than that conjured up by ‘market gardening’.

The customary reliance on ‘gardener’ has caused difficulties in previous studies. ‘Gardener’ described the first level of specialisation from agriculture, and was a term that was a composite of employer and employee, labourer and skilled employee, domestic and commercial. From its retention well into the nineteenth century it could be inferred that its meaning had not changed, but this was far from the case, this was a dynamic process. As specialised terms were introduced for naming a specific job, such as ‘gentleman’s gardener’, ‘nurseryman’ or ‘garden woman’, the scope of ‘gardener’ was reduced but an ambiguity between employer and employee remains. This dissertation has provided a greater understanding of the variation in meanings of the term ‘gardener’ through exploring its use in a variety of sources. Its long-term predominance as the occupational term used by parish and governmental bodies has determined that its opacity will remain until details of landholding and production can be found for more individual gardeners to explore further how this term was applied.

Clarification of the meaning of ‘gardener’ can be gained from analysis of commercial gardening businesses. From the seventeenth century they grew a mixture of horticultural and agricultural foodstuffs and decorative plants and flowers. These changed with consumer tastes and the introduction of new products, combined with keeping livestock, property development, retailing and a few other varied, and some unexpected, occupations; the mix changing as new opportunities arose. The diversified cultivation can account, in part, for difficulties in distinguishing between nurserymen, market gardeners, farmer-gardeners, seedsmen, and florists. Their activities were reflected in the use of dual occupations for some gardeners, but more often their occupational descriptor was an inadequate representation of their multiple roles in the business, especially while institutional records retained a customary approach. Tracing individuals through multiple sources has shown how different

318

elements in their occupations can emerge. Using a microhistorical approach has revealed these complexities and suggests why historians using other approaches have encountered problems.

In terms of ‘What was a gardening business?’ specialisation continued into the nineteenth century and did not follow one path. As David Marsh noted, gardeners were ‘shrewd businessmen’ but this study shows the diversity in cultivation and changing mix of products was greater than has been outlined previously, and extended beyond gardening.1034 Cultivation became a function of adaptation and risk management. Reliance on one specialism has not been found and an occupational description reflected the focus, not the entirety, of production. Neither has evidence of monoculture been found; examples of the varied produce in gardens have been shown but additional qualitative information is required to construct a more complete picture of the composition of garden businesses. There were market gardeners like John Millett who mixed a large acreage of one specialty vegetable, in this case asparagus, with fruit trees and arable farming, while others, like the Fitch family, combined fruit and vegetable production with a speciality in moss roses for cut flowers.1035 Other snippets add to the overall picture: in 1791 Thomas Webb had a waggon ready to transport produce to Covent Garden loaded with coleworts, turnips and greens, and in 1779 a gardener killed a woman while shooting the sparrows on his gooseberries.1036 John Millet was growing onions in 1808 and called himself a gardener and farmer, while John Rand’s servants were picking his crop of ‘pease’ in 1729, and in 1742 Jacob Thompson grew rosemary.1037 Such details are fragmentary but they are the type of evidence that is required to establish cultivation within one

1034 D. Marsh, The gardens and gardeners of later Stuart London, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (2004), p. 51. 1035 Valuation of Ranelagh property, 1830, LMA, DL/D/F/019/MS12328; Mortgage, Miss Fitch to James Sant, 1861, HFA, DD/106/67. 1036 The proceedings of the Old Bailey, trial of John Wadley, 1791 (t17910413-48); The proceedings of the Old Bailey, trial of Henry Vincent, 1779 (t17790404-34). 1037 Tanner, 1808, Old Bailey, t18080113-57; Rand, 1729, Old Bailey, t17290827-40; Hubbins, 1742, Old Bailey, t17420603-12.

319

business, and help to build the range of horticultural produce in the parish in successive periods. Connecting the diversity of production to an individual also helps to unpick the meaning of occupational terms attributed to them.

Cultivating a dynamic mix of products was in part a response to demand and new openings in the market. There was a balance to be made between investing in new products, high value crops such as asparagus that were difficult to grow, or fruit trees that took several years to produce their first crop, or spreading risk using multiple cropping of less valuable, but more hardy produce. James Lee followed demand to maximise profit, and removed products that were losing popularity in favour of new trends. In response to competition from producers elsewhere, who were taking market share by growing vegetables on cheaper land and using railways to access the London market, they could adapt by growing some animal fodder and fattening pigs. John Harvey’s view that the transition to specialised businesses, particularly for nurserymen, was completed for all but small businesses in the early eighteenth century, is not supported by these findings and some farming-gardening continued into the nineteenth century.1038 This was not a homogenous industry, it varied between Fulham and Hammersmith while gardens differed in their degree of specialisation, size, and longevity of production.

This is the first study since Thick’s 1998 analysis of the Neat House gardens in London, that is devoted entirely to commercial gardening. By focussing on one large parish, the existing fragmentary evidence about the development of commercial gardening has been blended with evidence from a new range of primary sources, to provide a more coherent, integrated account. The microhistorical approach employed here has thrown new light on existing topics. It has extended the present knowledge of commercial gardening and demonstrated how linking sources can breathe life into our understanding of garden businesses and individual gardeners. Unsurprisingly,

1038 J. Harvey, Early nurserymen (Chichester, 1974), p. 36.

320

Joan Thirsk was right to think that an in-depth view of commercial gardening would produce new knowledge about the industry but it has also revealed new questions that need to be answered.

321

322

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Place of publication is London, unless specified otherwise.

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 1. London, Hammersmith and Fulham Archives1039 DD/14/392, Waste at Eelbrook, Fulham, 1828. DD/15/1/2, Broadsheet, Hammersmith wastelands, 1801. DD/15/7, Re Wormholt Scrubs. The report of Messrs Alley-Jones & Co. Various rights and privileges of the Lord of the Manor, of the Commoners, and of the Parishioners of Hammersmith and Fulham in the commonable lands known as Wormholt Scrubs (1872). DD/21/10, Lease, Adam Askew Esquire to Mrs Purser, 1782. DD/21/16, Lease, John Lewis, Hammersmith, gentleman to Edward Patrick Warner, Fulham, gardener, 1804. DD/21/17, Lease, David de Charms to Richard Howells, 1811. DD/22/1, Conveyance, George Dodington to Peter Brushell, 1752. DD/22/10, Lease, Robert Cary Esquire to Mr Edward Pope, 1760. DD/22/11, Adam Askew and Miss Cary to Joseph Brookes, Hammersmith, Counterpart lease, 1803.

1039 During the course of this research Hammersmith and Fulham Archives have been subject to disruption and spending cuts, including all the experienced staff being made redundant, very reduced opening hours, temporary closure, and finally a re-location of premises. Some documents were transferred to the London Metropolitan Archives. A brief list of the items moved is given at https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/libraries/archives-and-local- studies/changes-location-previously-held-archive-collections, and also at https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/london-metropolitan-archives/the- collections/Pages/which-records-of-hammersmith-and-fulham-are-now-at-lma-and-why.aspxlast (accessed 4 September 2017). This may include some of the items listed in this bibliography which were viewed at the previous archives at The Lilla Huset, Talgarth Road, Hammersmith, but are now accessible through the LMA online catalogue. At the time of writing Fulham and Hammersmith archives do not have an online catalogue.

323

DD/21/12, Lease, Mr Richard Fisher to Mr John Salter Senior and Mr John Salter Junior, 1839. DD/22/15, Lease, Adam Askew Esq. and Mrs Mary Cary to Mr Joseph Holden, 1797. DD/67/40/2, Lease, Henry Harcourt to William Fletcher, 1740. DD/71/2-4, Parish registers, St Paul, Hammersmith, 1671-1717. DD/106/56, Lease, Miss Cary to Edmund Bryon, 1780. DD/106/57, Lease of a messuage or tenement close or garden ground at Parsons Green, Anthony Heck Esq to Mrs Elizabeth Rench, 1783. DD/106/58/1, Assignment of lease, Mrs Elizabeth Rench to Mr Daniel Fitch, 1791. DD/106/63, Lease of premises at Parsons Green, Mrs Winder and Mr and Mrs Piper to Mr Fitch, 1807. DD/106/66, Lease, O. Sampayo to Messrs D. H. & W. Fitch, 1845. DD/106/67, Miss Fitch and another to James Sant and others, 1861. DD/216/36, Manerium de Fulham, The antient Custom is as followeth presented by the Lords Jury, Anno Domini, 1685. DD/216/62. Lease, John Lane to George Dobson, 1818. DD/303/10, Lease of a dwelling house yard and garden ground at Fulham, Stephen Moore Esquire to Mr Robert Bryan, 1828. DD/303/15, Lease, Stephen Moore Esquire to Mr Robert Goldring, 1828. DD/303/16/1, Lease, The Honorable William Moore to Mr John Forster,1809. DD/306/ 16/8, Lease, Stephen Moore, Esq., to Mr Joseph Champness, 1814. DD/316/32, Lease, Mr Hunt to Mr Pope, 1765. DD/316/35, Lease, William John Hunt, Sloane Street, Middlesex, gentleman, to George Dobson, Hammersmith, gardener, 1809. DD/1052/77, Lease, Mr Robert Burton and others to Mr John Shaw, 1723. F336.27 MAC, Maclure, J., Index to Maclure’s survey of the parish of Fulham 1853 (1853). F352.01 FER, Feret, C., Extracts from the court rolls of the manor of Fulham, Vol. 2, 1603-1747 (undated).

324

H352.01 MAN, Miles, H., Extracts from the court rolls, 1686-1752 (1959). H353.01 MAN, Miles, H., The manor: Deeds and documents relating to Hammersmith in the archives of the Bishop of London’s “London bishopric estate” (1959). H900.6, Maclure, J., Plan of the parish of Fulham in the county of Middlesex, 1853. HC910SAL, Salter, J., View of the hamlet of Hammersmith taken from actual survey in the year 1830. ND/4/14, Marriages 1677-1741, Births 1658-1750, Burials 1676-1752, Society of Friends, Hammersmith. PAF/1/272/1-115, Apprenticeship indentures, June 1666-July 1750. PAH/1/157, A survey and valuation of all the lands and buildings within the hamlet of Hammersmith in the county of Middlesex. Taken and made by order of the vestry of the said hamlet by John Willock, 1793. PAH/1/158/2, Particulars of the valuation of Hammersmith parish for assessment made 1846. PAH/1/196/1-7, Apprentice indentures, March 1810-November 1832. PAH/1/215, Hammersmith census return, 1831.

2. London, London Metropolitan Archives ACC/0944-1, Middlesex deeds registry, Parochial index, 1709-1717. CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936, Sun Insurance Office and Royal Exchange insurance policies, 1777-1837. COL/CA/01/01/51, Repertory of the Court of Aldermen, No. 47 1632-33. COL/CA/01/01/053, Repertory of the Court of Aldermen, No. 49 1634-35. COL/CA/01/01/78, Repertory of the Court of Alderman, No 74 1668. COL/CHD/FR/02, Freedom admission papers, 1681-1925. DL/C/0441-0508, Wills, Consistory court of London, 1809-1834. DL/C/B/005/MS09172/69-194, Wills, Commissary court of London, 1680-1820.

325

DL/D/B/004/MS10466, Draft court baron books for the manors of Acton, Colham Garden, (alias Drayton), Ealing, Finchley, Fulham, Greenford and Hanwell, 1681-1847. DL/D/B/005/MS10832/108, Diocese of London, Court baron, Fulham, 1789. DL/D/E/014/MS10463B, Rental of the manor of Fulham, Middlesex, 1714-16. DL/D/F/019/MS12328 Diocese of London: Surveys and valuations of land and messuages in the parishes of Fulham, Hammersmith and Ealing, Middlesex, 1809-53. DL/D/F/020/MS10464, Parliamentary survey of the manor of Fulham, Middlesex, 1647 August 22. DL/D/F/021/MS12327, Diocese of London: Survey and valuation of leasehold estates in the parish of Fulham, Middlesex, 1810. DL/D/G, Diocese of London Estate records. Lease books, 1698-1804. DL/D/L, Diocese of London Estate records, Deeds, 1698-1825. DL/T/020/022-76, Diocese of London, Bishop’s transcripts, Parish registers, All Saints, Fulham, 1812-36. DL/T/031/001-43 Diocese of London, Bishop’s transcripts, Parish registers, St Paul, Hammersmith, 1801-26. DL/TI/A/015/A, Plan of the Parish of Fulham in the County of Middlesex, 1843. DL/TI/A/015/B, Apportionment for the Parish of Fulham in the County of Middlesex, 1843. DL/TI/A/020/A, Plan of the Parish of Hammersmith in the County of Middlesex, 1845. DL/TI/A/020/B, Apportionment for the Parish of Hammersmith in the County of Middlesex, 1845. MR/PLT/4790-4888, Land tax assessment books, Fulham and Hammersmith, 1780- 1832. MDR/1740/001-004, Middlesex deeds registry, 1740. P74/LUK/261, St Luke, Chelsea, Register of burials, 1830-33.

326

P77/ALL/001, All Saints, Fulham, Composite register: baptisms, marriages and burials, Apr 1674- Mar 1735/6. P77/ALL/002, All Saints, Fulham, Composite register: baptisms, marriages and burials, Apr 1735- Aug 1755. P77/ALL/003, All Saints, Fulham, Composite register: baptisms and burials, Jan 1755 -Dec 1789. P77/ALL/004, All Saints, Fulham, Composite register: baptisms and burials, Jan 1790- Dec 1812. P77/ALL/005, All Saints, Fulham, Register of baptisms, Jan 1813- May 1828. P77/ALL/006, All Saints, Fulham, Register of baptisms, May 1828- Feb 1843.

3. London, The National Archives B 3/4264, In the matter of John Rutt of Red Cow Lane, hamlet of Hammersmith, in the parish of Fulham, Middlesex, market gardener (dealer and chapman), bankrupt. Date of commission of bankruptcy: 1821 January 23. C 11/2362/7, Dancer and Dancer v. Brooks, 1718. C 11/2405/1, Moore v. Ceney. Bill and three answers, 1727. C 12/2171/10, Rough v. Bryon, 1793. C 12/2182/1, Bill and complaint, Mary Rough and John Maynard, 1793. C 24/2452, Court of chancery, Unpublished depositions, 1786-97. C 24/2453, Court of chancery, Unpublished depositions, 1797-1808. C 24/2506/9, Mary Rough and another v. John Riley 1783-92, Exhibit B: Lease for 2453. C 108/83, Strange v. Harris, 1775-93. HO 107/89, Example of Census Enumerators' Books, 1841. HO 107/465/7, Census returns, 1841, Birchington, Kent, Enumerator’s book. HO 107/655/4, Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Elthorne, West Drayton, Enumerator’s book. HO 107/689/3, Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, Chiswick, Enumerator’s book.

327

HO 107/689/10-15, Census returns, 1841 Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s book. HO 107/689/8 & 690/1-5, Census returns, 1841 Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, Hammersmith St Paul, Enumerator’s book. HO 107/690/6-7, Census returns, 1841, Middlesex, Ossulstone, Kensington, Hammersmith St Peter, Enumerator’s book. HO 107/1469, Census returns 1851, Middlesex, Hammersmith Brompton, Enumerator’s book. HO 107/1470, Census returns 1851, Middlesex, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith parish, Enumerator’s book. HO 107/1471, Census returns 1851, Middlesex, Kensington, Fulham parish, Enumerator’s book. HO 107/1699, Census returns 1851, Middlesex, Brentford, Chiswick. IR 1, Board of Stamps: Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures, 1710- 1811. PROB 4/14641, Probate inventory of Walter Sergeant, 1688. PROB 4/19189, Probate inventory of Dunston Kerbey, 1682. PROB 11, Prerogative court of Canterbury and related probate jurisdictions, Wills registers, 1650-1858. PROB 31/1053/682, Exhibit: 1811/682. John Lewis of the hamlet of Hammersmith, Fulham, Middlesex. Probate inventory, or declaration, of the estate of the same, deceased, with account, 1811. RG 7, Registers of Clandestine Marriages and of Baptisms in the Fleet Prison, King's Bench Prison, the Mint and the May Fair Chapel, 1667-1754. RG 9/23, 1861 Census returns, Middlesex, Kensington, St Peter Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule. RG 9/24-26, 1861 Census returns, Middlesex, Kensington, St Paul Hammersmith, Enumerator’s schedule. RG 9/27-29, 1861 Census returns, Middlesex, Kensington, Fulham, Enumerator’s schedule.

328

4. London, Bank of England Archives AC 27/146, Stock ledger index £3% annuities, I-Z, Dec 1743-Aug 1760. AC27/1421-2035 Stock Ledger: Consols £3% 1761-1837.

5. London, Society of Genealogists 96707, Bank of England will extracts, 1717-1845, being extracts of wills of those who died with monies in the public funds.

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES Baird, T., General view of agriculture of the county of Middlesex (1793). Bowack, J., The antiquities of Middlesex; being a collection of the several church monuments in that county. Also an historical account of each church and parish with the seats, villages, and names of the most eminent inhabitants, etc. (1705-6). Bradley, R., A general treatise of husbandry and gardening; containing a new system of vegetation: illustrated with many observations, Vol. 2 (2 vols., 1726). Bradley, R., A philosophical account of the works of nature: endeavouring to set forth the several gradations remarkable in the mineral, vegetable and animal parts of nature (1721). Bradley, R., The gentleman and gardener’s Kalendar, directing what is necessary to be done every month in the kitchen-garden, fruit garden, nursery (3rd edn., 1720). Cary, J., Carys actual survey of the country fifteen miles round London (1786). Collyer, J., The parent’s and guardian’s directory, and the youth’s guide, in the choice of a profession or trade (1761). de la Quintinie, J., The compleat gard’ner, trans. J. Evelyn (1693). Faulkner, T., An historical and topographical account of Fulham including the hamlet of Hammersmith (1813). Faulkner, T., The history and antiquities of the parish of Hammersmith (1839).

329

Foot, P., General view of the agriculture in the county of Middlesex (1794). Fuller, T., The history of the worthies of England (1811 edn., original 1662). Hartlib, S., His legacie of husbandry (3rd edn, 1655). James, E., An enquiry as to the duration of life in rural districts. Including the parishes of Barnes, Putney, Kew, and Mortlake, in the county of Surrey; and the parishes of Acton, Ealing, Chiswick, Hammersmith, and Fulham, in the county of Middlesex (2nd edition, 1858). Lee, J., Introduction to botany, containing an explanation of the theory of that science; Extracted from the works of Dr. Linnaeus. (1794). London, G. and Wise, H., The complete gard’ner (1701). Loudon, J.C., An encyclopaedia of gardening (1835).

Lysons, D., The environs of Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire (1811). Lysons, D., The environs of London: being an historical account of the towns, villages and hamlets; within 12 miles of that capital (4 vols., 1796). Lysons, D., ‘General view of the former and present state of market gardens, and the quantity of land now occupied for that purpose within twelve miles of London’, The environs of London: being an historical account of the towns, villages and hamlets; within 12 miles of that capital, (4 vols, 1796) 4, 573-6. Metropolitan sanitary commission, ‘Second report of the commissioners appointed to inquire whether any and what special means may be requisite for the improvement of the health of the metropolis’, House of Commons papers, 32 (1847-8). Miller, P., Gardener’s dictionary (1731). Middleton, J., View of the agriculture of Middlesex; with observations on the means of its improvement, and several essays on agriculture in general (1798). Norden, J., Speculum Britanniae. An historical and chorographical description of Middlesex and Hartfordshire (1723). Reports of special assistant poor law commissioners on the employment of women and children in agriculture, Parliamentary papers (1843).

330

Rocque, J., A new and accurate survey of the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of Southwark: with the country about it for nineteen miles in length and thirteen miles in depth (1747). Salter, J., The chrysanthemum: its history and culture (1865).

Smith, A., An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (4 vols., 4th edn., Paris, 1801). Thornton, R., ‘Sketch of the life and writings of the late James Lee’, in J. Lee, Introduction to the science of botany (4th ed., 1810), v-xix. Weston, R., Tracts on practical agriculture and gardening (1773). Whishaw, F., Analysis of railways: consisting of a series of reports on the twelve hundred miles of projected railways in England and Wales (1837). Worshipful Company of Gardiners, Adam Armed (c. 1700).

OFFICIAL SOURCES (All accessed via www.histpop.org) Abstract of the answers and returns Made pursuant to an Act, passed in the Fifty- first year of His Majesty King George III. Intituled, ‘An Act for taking an account of the population of Great Britain, and of the increase or diminution thereof.’ 1811, Observations and Enumeration Abstract (1812). Rickman, J., ‘Preliminary observations’, Abstract of the answers and returns made pursuant to an Act, passed in the Fifty-first year of His Majesty King George III. Intituled, ‘An Act for taking an account of the population of Great Britain, and of the increase or diminution thereof’’. (1811). Abstract of answers and returns Made pursuant to an Act, passed in the First Year of the reign of His Majesty King George IV intituled, “An Act for taking an Account of the Population of Great Britain, and the Increase or Diminution thereof”. Observations, enumeration and parish register abstracts 1821 (1822).

331

Abstract of answers and returns Made pursuant to an Act, passed in the Eleventh Year of the reign of His Majesty King George IV intituled, “An Act for taking an Account of the Population of Great Britain, and the Increase or Diminution thereof.” 1831 Enumeration abstract Vol. 1, 1831 (1833). Abstract of the answers and returns Made pursuant to Acts 3 & 4 Vic. c.99 and 4 Vic. c.7 intituled respectively “An Act for taking an Account of the Population of Great Britain,” and “An act to amend the Acts of the last Session for taking an Account of the Population”, - Occupation Abstract, 1841, Part 1, England and Wales and Islands in the British Seas (1843), - Enumeration Abstract, 1841, Part 1, England and Wales and Islands in the British Seas (1843). Census of Great Britain, 1851, Population tables, Vol. II, England and Wales, Divisions I to VI (1854). Forms and instructions prepared under the direction of one of Her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State for the use of the persons employed in taking an account of the Population of Great Britain, by virtue of the Act of 15 & 14 Victoria, cap 53 (1851). Census of England and Wales for the year 1861, General report (1863).

NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS Agricultural Journal and Transactions of the Lower Canada Agricultural Society. The Athenaeum. The British Farmer’s Magazine. The Era. Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette. The Gentleman’s Magazine. Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener. Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper. London Gazette, www.thegazette.co.uk, accessed 22 August 2017.

332

The Standard. The Times.

PRINTED SECONDARY WORKS

Aitken, S. and Valentine, G., ‘Contested geographies, culture wars, personal clashes and joining debate’, in S. Aitken and G. Valentine, eds., Approaches to human geography (2006), 417-29. Allen, R., The British industrial revolution in global perspective (Cambridge, 2009). Allen, R., ‘Agriculture during the industrial revolution, 1700-1850’, in R. Floud and P. Johnson, eds., The Cambridge economic history of modern Britain, Volume 1, Industrialisation, 1700-1860 (3 vols., Cambridge, 2004), 96-116. Allen, R., ‘The price of freehold land and the interest rate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, EcHR, 41:1, (1988), 33-50. Arkell, T., Evans, N. and Goose N., eds., When death do us part: understanding and interpreting the probate records of early modern England (Oxford, 2000). ‘Association of medical officers of health’, The Journal of Social Science, 1 (1866). Atkins, P., Animal cities: beastly urban histories (Farnham, 2012). Atkins, P., ‘The charmed circle: von Thunen and agriculture around London in the nineteenth century’, Geography, 72:2 (1987), 129-39. Atherall, P., The displacement of market gardening around London by urban growth, 1745-1939, unpublished MLitt dissertation, University of Cambridge (1976). Bailey, K., The metamorphosis of Battersea, 1800-1914: a building history, unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University (1995). Barker, H., ‘Women and work’, in H. Barker and E. Chalus, eds., Women’s history: Britain 1700-1850, an introduction (Abingdon, 2005), 124-51. Barker, H. and Ishizu, M., ‘Inheritance and continuity in small family businesses during the early industrial revolution’, Business History, 54:2 (2012), 227-44.

333

Barnes, M., Root and branch: a history of the Worshipful Company of Gardeners of London (1994). Baviskar, A., ‘Introduction’, in A. Baviskar, ed, Contested grounds: essays in nature, culture and power (Oxford, 2008), 1-12. Beavington, F., ‘The development of market gardening in Bedfordshire, 1799-1939’, AgHR, 23:1 (1975), 23-47. Beavington, F., ‘Early market gardening in Bedfordshire’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37 (1965), 91-100. Beckett, J., ‘The decline of the small landowner in eighteenth- and nineteenth- century England: some regional considerations’, AgHR, 30:2 (1982), 97-111. Beckett, J., ‘The pattern of landownership in England and Wales, 1660-1800’, EcHR, 37:1 (1984), 1-22. Bell, D., ‘Total history and microhistory: the French and Italian paradigms’, in L. Kramer and S. Maza, eds., A companion to Western historical thought (Oxford, 2002), 262-76. Bennett, L., The horticultural industry of Middlesex (University of Reading, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Miscellaneous Studies No. 7, 1952). Berg, M., ‘Women’s consumption and the industrial classes of eighteenth century England’, Journal of Social History, 30:2 (1996), 415-34. Best, G., Temporal pillars: Queen Anne’s bounty, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Church of England (Cambridge, 1964). Bonfield, L., ‘Contrasting sources: court rolls and settlements as evidence of hereditary transmission of land amongst small landowners in early modern England’, University of Illinois Law Review, 3 (1984), 639-58. Bonfield, L., Devising, dying and dispute: probate litigation in early modern England (Farnham, 2012). Boulton, J., ‘Clandestine marriages in London: an examination of a neglected urban variable’, Urban History, 20:2, (1993), 191-210. Boulton, J., 'London 1540-1700', in P. Clark, ed, The Cambridge urban history of Britain, Vol. 2, 1540-1840 (3 vols., Cambridge, 2000), 315-346.

334

Boulton, J., ‘Microhistory in early modern London: John Bedford (1601-1667)’, Continuity and Change, 22:1 (2007), 113-41. Boulton, J., Neighbourhood and society: a London suburb in the seventeenth century (Cambridge, 2005). British Geological Survey, Geology of Britain viewer, http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html, British Geological Survey, North London Sheet 256, Solid and drift edition, 1:50,000 series (1993). British Records Association, Guideline 3: Interpreting deeds - Elements of a lease (2004). www.britishrecordsassociation.org.uk/guidelines/guide3_print.doc. Brown, D., ‘New men of wealth and the purchase of land in Great Britain and Ireland, 1780-1879’, AgHR, 63:2 (2015), 286-310. Brown, M., The market gardens of Barnes and Mortlake: the rise and fall of an industry (1985). Brown, R., ‘Microhistory and the post-modern challenge’, Journal of the Early Republic, 23:1 (2003), 1-20. Bull, G., ‘Introduction’, in T. Milne, Thomas Milne’s land use map of London and environs in 1800 (facsimile edition, 1975-6), 1-6. Bull, G., ‘Thomas Milne’s land utilization map of London’, Geographical Journal, 122:1 (1956), 25-30. Burnby, J. and Robinson, A., Now turned into fair garden plots (Stow) (1983). Camp, A., ‘Apprenticeship’, Practical Family History, 64 (2003), 12-14. Carter, P., Enclosure resistance in Middlesex, 1656-1889: A study of common right assertion, unpublished PhD dissertation, Middlesex University (1998). Carter, P., ‘Enclosure, waged labour and the formation of a class consciousness: rural Middlesex c. 1700-1835’, Labour History Review, 66:3 (2001), 269-93. Casson, M., ‘The economics of the family firm’, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 47:1 (1999), 10-23. Churches, C., ‘Women and property in early modern England: a case study’, Social History, 23:2 (1993), 165-80.

335

Clark. G., ‘Commons sense: common property rights, efficiency and institutional change’, Journal of Economic History, 58:1 (1998), 73-102. Clay, C., ‘ “The greed of Whig bishops” ? Church landlords and their lessees 1660-1760’, Past and Present, 87 (1980), 128-57. Clay, C., ‘Landlords and estate management in England: the evolution of landed society after the Restoration’, in J. Thirsk, ed, The agrarian history of England and Wales. Vol. 5 1640-1750, II Agrarian change (Cambridge, 1985), 170-86. Clay, C., ‘Lifeleasehold in the western counties of England 1650-1750’, AgHR, 29:2 (1981), 83-96. Collins, J. L., Key of the fields: the Lobjoits and Covent Garden market (1990). Cookson, G., ‘Family firms and business networks: textile engineering in Yorkshire, 1780-1830’, Business History, 39:1 (1997), 1-20. Cooper, J., ‘The social distribution of land and men in England, 1436-1700’, EcHR, 20:3 (1967), 419-40. Correspondence between Carl Linnaeus and James Lee, 1766-81, The Linnean correspondence, http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_bio.php?id_person=1097, accessed 27 July 2017. Cottis, J., Agrarian change in the Vale of the White Horse, 1660-1760, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Reading (1984). Coulton, C., Curiosity, commerce and conversation in the writing of London horticulturalists during the early eighteenth century, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (2005). Crossick, G., ‘From gentlemen to the residuum: languages of social description in Victorian Britain’, in P. Corfield, ed, Language, class and history (Oxford, 1991). Currie, I., Frosts, freezes and fairs (Coulsdon, 1996). Daunton, M., ‘Inheritance and succession in the City of London in the nineteenth century,’ Business History, 30:3 (1998), 269-86.

336

Davidoff, L. and Hall, C., Family Fortunes: Men and women of the English middle class, 1780-1850 (1987). Denny, B., Fulham past (1997). Dewe, D. and Haselgrove, D., ‘Fulham town, Hurlingham and Crabtree’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), 39-59. Dickenson, J., ‘William John Burchell, 1781-1863’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004; online edn, May 2006). Distance between London bridges, http:www.nationaltrail.co.uk/sites/default/distances_between_bridges_in_Lon don_1.pdf, accessed 5 September 2017. Drake, D., Wood and Ingram: A Huntingdonshire nursery 1742-1950 (Over, 2008). Drake, M., ‘The census, 1801-1891’, in E.A. Wrigley, ed, Nineteenth century society: essays in the use of quantitative methods for the study of social data (Cambridge, 1972), 7-46. Duffy, I., ‘English bankrupts, 1572-1861’, American Journal of Legal History, 24:4 (1980), 283-305. Dunlop, O., English apprenticeships and child labour: a history (New York, 1912). Earle, P., The making of the English middle class: business, society and family life in London, 1660-1730 (1989). Elliott, B., ‘Commercial horticulture in Victorian London’, in M. Galinou, ed, London’s pride: the glorious history of the capital’s gardens (1990), 168-77. Elliott, B., ‘The development and present state of garden history’, Occasional papers from the Royal Horticultural Society, 9 (2012). S. Elliott, ‘The open-field system of an urban community; Stamford in the nineteenth century’, AgHR, 20:2 (1972), 155-68. Erickson, A., ‘Married women’s occupations in eighteenth-century London’, Continuity and Change, 23:1 (2008), 257-307. Erickson, A., Women and property in early modern England (1993). Evans, G., ‘Farms and market gardens’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), 230-7.

337

Evans, N., ‘Inheritance, women, religion and education in early modern society as revealed by wills’, in P. Riden, ed, Probate records in the local community, (Gloucester, 1985), 54-70. Evelyn, J., Elysium Britannicum, or The royal gardens, J. Ingram (ed.) (original m/s 1620-1706; Philadelphia, PA, 2001). Feret, C., Fulham old and new (3 vols., 1900). Field, J., and Erickson, E., Prospects and preliminary work on female occupational structure in England from 1500 to the national census (HPSS Research Paper 18, University of Cambridge, 2009), http://www.hpss.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/. Fisher, F. J., ‘The development of the London food market, 1540-1640’, EcHR, 5:2 (1935), 46-64. Floud, R., The hidden face of British gardening (Lecture given at Gresham College, London, 12 May 2011), http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and- events/the-hidden-face-of-british-gardening. Fowler, F., Queen Caroline in Fulham (2014), https:www.lbhflibraries.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/queen-caroline-in- fulham. Francis, F., ‘ “A ffitt place for any Gentleman”? Gardens, gardeners and gardening in England and Wales, c. 1560-1660’, unpublished PhD dissertation University of Birmingham (2011). Gadd, I. and Wallis, P., ‘Introduction’, in I. Gadd and P. Wallis, eds., Guilds, society and economy in London 1450-1800 (2000), 1-14. Ginzburg, C., The cheese and he worms: the cosmos of a sixteenth century miller (1992). Ginzburg, C., ‘Microhistory’, Serious science (25 June 2015), http://www.serious-science.org/videos/2893. Glaisyer, N., The culture of commerce in England, 1660-1720 (Cambridge, 2006). Goody, J., ‘Introduction’, in J. Goody, J. Thirsk, and E.P. Thompson, eds., Family

338

and inheritance: rural society in western Europe, 1200-1800 (Cambridge, 1978), 1-9. Grannum, K. and Taylor, N., Wills and probate records: a guide for family historians (Richmond, Surrey, 2009). Green, D. and Owens, A., ‘Geographies of wealth: real estate and personal property ownership in England & Wales, 1870-1902’, EcHR, 66:3 (2013), 848-72. Green, D. and Owens, A., ‘Introduction’, in D. Green and A. Owens, eds., Family welfare: gender, property and inheritance since the seventeenth century (2004), 1-30. Greener, R. C., The rise of the professional gardener in nineteenth-century Devon: a social and economic history, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Exeter (2009). Grigg, D., ‘The changing agricultural geography of England: a commentary on the sources available for the reconstruction of the agricultural geography of England, 1770-1850’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41 (1967), 73-95. Hammersmith and Fulham archives, Records of Church of England parishes, http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Leisure_and_Culture/Libraries/Archives/2 3436_Records_of_Church_of_England_Parishes.asp?LGNTF=32, last accessed 8 November 2012. (No longer online) Harding, V., ‘The population of London, 1550-1700: a review of the published evidence’, The London Journal, 15:2 (1990), 111-23. Harrison, W., The description of Elizabethan England. The classic contemporary account of Tudor social life, G. Edelen, ed, (Washington, DC and New York, NY, 1994). Harvey, J. H., Early gardening catalogues (1972). Harvey, J. H., Early nurserymen (Chichester, 1974). Harvey, J. H., ‘The nurseries on Milne’s land-use map’, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 24 (1973), 177-98.

339

Harvey, J. H., ‘The stocks held by early nurseries’, AgHR, 22:1 (1974), 18-35. Harvey, J. H., ‘A Scottish botanist in London in 1766’, Garden History, 9:1 (1981), 40-75. Harvey, J. H., ‘Published writings by John Hooper Harvey (1911-97)’, Garden History, 26:1 (1998), 102-5. Harvey, J. H., ‘Vegetables in the middle ages’, Garden History, 12:2 (1984), 89-99. Havinden, H., ‘Agricultural progress in open-field Oxfordshire’, AgHR, 9:2 (1961), 73-83. Henrey, B., British botanical and horticultural literature before 1800 comprising a history and bibliography of botanical and horticultural books in print in England, Scotland, and Ireland from the earliest times until 1800 (1975). Higgs, E., Census of England and Wales, 1841 (undated c. 2005), http://www.histpop.org, accessed 24 July 2016. Higgs, E., ’Occupational censuses and the agricultural workforce in Victorian England and Wales’, EcHR, 48:4 (1995), 700-16. Higgs, E., ‘The struggle for the occupational census 1841-1911’, in R. Macleod, ed, Government and expertise: specialists, administrators and professionals, 1860-1919 (Cambridge, 1988), 73-88. Higgs, E., ‘The tabulation of occupations in the nineteenth-century census: with special reference to domestic servants’, in D. Mills and K. Schurer, eds., Local communities in the Victorian census enumeration books (Oxford, 1996), 27-35. Higgs, E., ‘Women, occupations and work in the nineteenth century censuses’, History Workshop Journal, 23:1 (1987), 59-80. Hill, B., Women, work and sexual politics in eighteenth century England (Oxford, 1989). Hill, B., ‘Women, work and the census: a problem for historians of women’, History Workshop Journal, 35:1 (1993), 78-94. Hindle, S., ‘Dearth and the English revolution: the harvest crisis of 1647-50’, EcHR, 61 (2008), 64-98.

340

Hindle, S., ‘Power, poor relief and social relationships in Holland Fen, c. 1600- 1800’, The Historical Journal, 41:1 (1998), 67-96. Hindle, S., ‘Waste children? Pauper apprenticeship under the Elizabethan poor laws c. 1598-1697’, in P. Lane, N. Raven and K. Snell, eds., Women , work and wages in England, 1600-1850 (Woodbridge, 2004), 15-46. History of Fulham Palace, www.fulhampalace.org/palace/history. History of the department, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, https://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/about/history, accessed 20 August 2017. Hobhouse, H., ed, ‘The Gunter estate’, Survey of London, Vol. 42, Kensington Square to Earl’s Court (1986). http://www.british-history.ac.uk/. Hobhouse, H., ‘The building of Belgravia 1’, Country Life, (May 8, 1969), p. 1155. Home Office Acreage Returns (HO67), List & Index Society, Part II Jersey-Somerset 1801 (Vol. 190, 1982), transcribed and ed. M. Turner. Honeybourne, M., ‘The ‘manor’ of Pallingswick, the leper hospital and the reformation’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), 35-44. Honeyman, K., Child workers in England, 1780-1820: parish apprentices and the making of the early industrial labour force (Aldershot, 2007). Honeyman, K., ‘Doing business with gender: service industries and British business activity’, Business History Review, 81:3 (2007), 471-93. Hope, A., Londoners’ larder (Edinburgh, 1990). Hoppit, J., ‘Financial crises in eighteenth century England’, EcHR, 39:1 (1986), 39- 58. Humphries, J., Childhood and child labour in the British industrial revolution (Cambridge, 2010). Humphries, J., ‘English apprentices: a neglected factor in the first industrial revolution’, in P. David and M. Thomas, eds., The economic future in historical perspective (Oxford, 2003), 73-102. Humphries, J., ‘Rent seeking or skill creating? Apprenticeship in early industrial

341

Britain’, in P. Gauci ed, Regulating the British economy, 1660-1850 (Farnham, 2011), 235-58. M. Hunt, The middling sort: commerce, gender and the family in England, 1680- 1780 (Berkeley, 1996). Hyde, R., The A-Z of Georgian London (1981). Institute of Geological Sciences, South London Sheet 270, Solid and drift geology edition, 1:50,000 series (Southampton, 1981). Jackson, B., ‘Lee, James (1715-1795)’, revised A. Pimlott Baker, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2004; online edn, May 2006). Jackson, T., ‘Personal wealth in late eighteenth century Warrington’, EcHR, 44:2 (1991), 319-327. Janes, A., The King’s (Private) road (2013), http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/the-kings-private-road/, accessed 5 September 2017. Jenkins, H., A history of London (1918). Kain, R., An atlas and index of the tithe files of mid-nineteenth-century England and Wales (Cambridge, 1986). Kain, R. and Prince, H., The tithe surveys of England and Wales (Cambridge, 1985). Kalm, P., Kalm's account of his visit to England on his way to America in 1748, ed. and trans., J. Lucas (1892). Keibek, S., Allocating labourers to occupational sectors using regression techniques, Working paper No, 28, Campop, University of Cambridge (2016), http://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/. Keibek, S., By-employment and occupational structure in early modern England, Campop, University of Cambridge (2016). http://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/. Keibek, S and Shaw-Taylor, L., ‘Early modern rural by-employments: a re- examination of the probate inventory evidence’, AgHR, 61:2 (2013), 244-81. Kitson, P., The recording of occupations in the Anglican baptism registers of England and Wales, 1690-1799 (2007), http://www.hpss.geog.ac.uk.

342

Kitson, P., Shaw-Taylor, L. and Wrigley, E.A., The creation of a ‘census’ of adult male employment for England and Wales in 1817, CWPESH No. 4, University of Cambridge (2012) http://www.econsoc.hist.cam.ac.uk/working_papers.html. Krausman Ben-Amos, I., ‘Women apprentices in the trades and crafts of early modern Bristol’, Continuity and Change, 6:2 (1991), 227-52. Laird, M., ‘ “Perpetual spring” or tempestuous fall: the greenhouse and the Great Storm of 1703 in the life of John Evelyn and his contemporaries’, Garden History, 34:2 (2006), 153-7. Leith, C., ‘Video, landscape and the politics and poetics of place in Ireland’, Experimental conversations, 4 (2009), unpaginated. http://www.experimentalconversations.com/article/video-landscape-and-the- politics-poetics-of-place-in-ireland/. Leunig, T., Minns, C and Wallis, P., ‘Networks in the premodern economy: the market for London apprenticeships, 1600-1749’, Journal of Economic History, 71:2 (2011), 413-43. Levene, A., ‘ “Honesty, sobriety and diligence”: master-apprentice relations in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England’, Social History, 33:2 (2008), 183-200 . Levene, A., ‘Parish apprenticeship and the old poor law in London’, EcHR, 63:4 (2010), 915-41. Levi, G., ‘On microhistory’, in P. Burke, ed, New perspectives on historical writing (Cambridge, 1991), 93-113. Lindert. P., ‘English occupations 1670-1811’, Journal of Economic History, 40:4 (1980), 685-712. Lindert, P., ‘Who owned Victorian England? The debate over landed wealth and inequality’, Agricultural History, 661:4 (1897), 25-51. LMA, The Middlesex deeds registry, 1709-1938, Information leaflet 38 (revised 2010). LMA, City freedom archives, Information leaflet 14 (revised 2011).

343

LMA, Fire insurance records, Information leaflet 48 (2010). London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. St Peter’s Square: Conservation area character profile (1977), https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/section_attachments/st_peters_squ are_1_14_tcm21-34541.pdf. Lorandini, C., ‘Looking beyond the Buddenbrooks syndrome: the Salvadori firm of Trento, 1660s-1880s’, Business History, 57:7 (2015), 1005-19. Magnusson, S., ‘Microhistory: in between methodologies and conceptual frameworks’, Microhistory (13 January 2013), unpaginated, www.microhistory.org/?e=34&w=journal. Marriner, S., ‘English bankruptcy records and statistics before 1850’, EcHR, 33:3 (1980), 351-66. Marsh, D., The gardens and gardeners of later Stuart London, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (2004). Martin, J., ‘The social and economic origins of the Vale of Evesham market gardening industry’, AgHR, 33:1 (1985), 41-50. Matheson, J., Common ground: horticulture and the cultivation of open space in the East End of London, 1840-1900, unpublished PhD dissertation, The Open University (2010). Mathias, P., The first industrial nation: an economic history of Britain, 1700-1914 (1969). Miles, H., ‘The manor of Fulham’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), 21-34. Miller, K., Matyear family of Fulham, Middlesex (undated), http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kmiller/matyear.htm. Milnes, T., Thomas Milne’s land use map of London and environs in 1800 (facsimile edition, 1975-6). Minns, C. and Wallis, P., ‘Rules and reality: quantifying the practice of apprenticeship in early modern England’, EcHR, 65:2 (2012), 556-79.

344

MoLAS (C. Haward), 81-88 Fulham High Street, FHI03 (2003), http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/siteSummariesDetailsAll.asp?year=summarie s2003&borough=Hammersmith%20and%20Fulham. MoLAS, (N. Roycroft), Junction of Rigault Road and Burlington Road, SW6, RGT98 (1998), http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/siteSummariesDetailsAll.asp?year=summarie s1998&borough=Hammersmith%20and%20Fulham. Morehouse, B, A place called Grand Canyon: contested geographies (Tucson, AZ., 1996). Morris, R., Men, women and property in England, 1780-1870: A social and economic history of strategies among the Leeds middle class (Cambridge, 2005). Muldrew, C., ‘The culture of reconciliation: community and the settlement of economic disputes in early modern England’, Historical Journal, 39:4 (1996), 915-42. Muldrew, C., The economy of obligation: the culture of credit and social relations (Basingstoke, 1998). Muldrew, C., ‘Interpreting the market: the ethics of credit and community relations in early modern England’, Social History, 18:2 (1993), 163-83. Nenadic, S., ‘The small family firm in Victorian Britain’, Business History, 35:4 (1993), 86-114. The National Archives, Bankrupts and insolvent debtors, Legal records information 5 (2010), http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/bankrupts- insolvent-1710-1869.htm. Newton, G., ‘Clandestine marriage in early modern London: when, where and why?’, Continuity and Change, 29:2 (2014), 151-80. Offer, A., ‘Farm tenure and land values in England, c. 1750-1950’, EcHR, 44:1 (1991), 1-20. O’Donoghue, J. and L. Goulding, ‘Consumer price inflation since 1700’, Office for national statistics: Economic Trends, 604 (2004), 38-46.

345

O’Neill, J., 'John Rocque as a guide to gardens', Garden History, 16:1 (1988), 8- 16. Old Ordnance Survey maps, -London sheet 47, Kensal Green, 1865 (Consett, 2003). -London sheet 58: East Acton and Wormwood Scrubs, 1871 (Consett, 2005). -London sheet 59: Notting Hill, 1871 (Consett, 2009). -London sheet 72: North Hammersmith, 1869 (Consett, 2004). -London sheet 73: Holland Park and Shepherd’s Bush, 1871 (2nd edn., Consett, 1989). -London sheet 86, Hammersmith and Fulham, 1871 (Consett, 1987). -London sheet 87: Chelsea, 1865, (Consett, 1992). -London sheet 99: Putney Bridge and Fulham, 1865 (Consett, 2004). -London sheet 100: Battersea and Fulham, 1866 (Consett, 2007). Ormrod, D., ‘Agrarian capitalism and merchant capitalism: Tawney, Dobb, Brenner and beyond’, in J. Whittle, ed, Landlords and tenants in Britain, c. 1440- 1660, Tawney’s agrarian problem revisited (2013), 200-15. Ottaway, S. and Williams, S., ‘Reconstructing the life-cycle experience of poverty in the time of the old poor law’, Archives, 23:98 (1998), 19-29. Our heritage, http://poupartproduce.com/company/heritage/, accessed 5 September 2017. Outhwaite, R., Dearth, public policy and social disturbances in England, 1550-1800 (Cambridge, 1995). Overton, M., ‘Re-establishing the agricultural revolution’, AgHR, 44:1 (1996), 1-20. Owens, A., ‘Inheritance and the life-cycle of family firms in the early industrial revolution’, Business History, 44:1 (2002), 21-46. Owens, A., ‘Property, gender and the life course: inheritance and family welfare provision in early nineteenth-century England,’ Social History, 26:3 (2001), 299-317. Page, W., ed, A history of the county of Middlesex, Vol. 2 (1911). Pearson, R., Insuring the industrial revolution: fire insurance in Great Britain, 1700-

346

1850 (Aldershot, 2004). Pearson, R., ‘Moral hazard and the assessment of insurance risk in eighteenth- and early-nineteenth century Britain’, Business History Review, 76 (20002), 1-35. Phillips, N., Women in business, 1700-1850 (Woodbridge, 2006). Pooley, R., ‘Hammersmith government’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), 239-47. Pratt, D., London canals, (Princes Risborough, 2004). Prince, H., ‘The tithe surveys of the mid-nineteenth century’, AgHR, 7:1 (1959), 14- 26. Principal Probate Registry, Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England, [National probate calendar (Index of wills and administrations)], 1858-1966. www.ancestry.co.uk, accessed 27 August 2017. Quex Park and Powell Cotton Museum, http://www.quexpark.co.uk/quex-estate/the-three-towers-at-quex.html, accessed 30 August 2017. Reay, B., Microhistories: demography, society and culture in rural England, 1800- 1930 (Cambridge, 1996). Richardson, R., ‘Metropolitan counties: Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Middlesex’ in J. Thirsk, ed, The agrarian history of England and Wales, Vol. 5, 1640- 1750, I. Regional farming systems (Cambridge, 1984), 239-69. J-P. Rodrigue, The von Thunen model, www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/software/vonthunen.asp, last accessed 10 August 2011. Rogers, I., Dictionary of Canadian Biography (Toronto, Canada, 1983), http://www.biographi.ca/en/index.php. Roos, P., ‘Public transport in Hammersmith’, in P. Whitting, ed., A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), 228-38. Rose, G., ‘Imagining Poplar in the 1920s: contested concepts of community’, Journal of Historical Geography, 16:4 (1990), 425-37.

347

Rose, M., ‘Beyond Buddenbrooks: the family firm and the management of succession in nineteenth century Britain’, in J. Brown and M. Rose, eds., Entrepreneurship, networks and modern business (Manchester, 1993), 127- 43. Rose, M., ‘The family firm in British business, 1780-1914’, in M. Kirby and M. Rose, eds., Business enterprise in modern Britain: from the eighteenth century to the twentieth century (1994), 88-112. Rothschild, E., ‘Isolation and economic life in eighteenth century France’, American History Review, 119 (2014), 1055-82. Rough, B., The operation of a small business in Fulham, London c. 1700-1800, unpublished MSt dissertation, University of Cambridge (2010). Rough family papers. Private collection. Rubel, W., 'But, Did the English eat their vegetables? A look at English kitchen gardens, and the vegetable cookery they imply (1650-1800)’, in S. Friedland, ed, Vegetables: Proceedings of the Oxford symposium on food and cookery 2008 (Totnes, 2009), 184-93. Sanderson, E., Women and work in eighteenth-century Edinburgh, (Basingstoke, 1996). Sanecki,K. Old garden tools (Princes Risborough, 2004). Schwarz, L., ‘London apprentices in the seventeenth century: some problems’, Local Population Studies, 38 (1987), 18-22. Schwarz, L., ‘London 1700-1840’, in P. Clark, ed., Cambridge urban history of Britain, Vol. 2, 1540-1840 (3 vols, Cambridge, 2000 ), 641-72. Schwarz, L., London in the age of industrialisation: entrepreneurs, labour force and living conditions, 1700-1850 (Cambridge, 1992). Schwarz, L., and Jones, L., ‘Wealth, occupation and insurance in the late eighteenth century, the policy registers of the Sun Fire Office’, EcHR, 36:3 (1983), 365- 73. Scott, V., Tooley’s dictionary of mapmakers, Q-Z (revised edition, Riverside, CT, 2004).

348

Sharpe, P., Adapting to capitalism: working women in the English economy, 1700- 1850 (Basingstoke, 1996). Sharpe, P. ‘Gender in the economy: female merchants in the British Isles, 1600- 1850’, Histoire Sociale, 34:.68 (2001), 283-306. Sharpe, P., ‘Poor children as apprentices in Colyton, 1580-1830’, Continuity and Change, 6:3 (1991), 253-70. Shaw, B. and Jones, R., ‘Introduction: contested urban heritage’, in B. Shaw and R. Jones, eds., Contested urban heritage: voices from the periphery (Aldershot, 1997), 1-10. Shaw, C., The London market gardens or flowers, fruits and vegetables as grown for market (1879). Shaw-Taylor, L., Diverse experiences: the geography of adult female employment in England and the 1851 census, HPSS research paper 12, University of Cambridge (undated c. 2006), http://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/. Shaw-Taylor, L., ‘Family farms and capitalist farms in mid-nineteenth century England’, AgHR, 53:2 (2005), 158-91. Shaw-Taylor, L., ‘The rise of agrarian capitalism and the decline of family farming in England’, EcHR, 65:1 (2012), 26-60. Shaw-Taylor, L., Davies, R., Kitson, P., et al, The occupational structure of England and Wales c.1817-1881, HPSS research paper 23, University of Cambridge, (2010). http://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/occupations/abstracts/. Shaw-Taylor, L., and Wrigley, E.A., ‘Occupational structure and population change’, in R. Floud, J. Humphries, and P. Johnson, eds., The Cambridge economic history of modern Britain, Vol. 1, 1700-1870 (2 vols., 2nd ed., Cambridge, 2014), 53-88. Shephard, S., Seeds of fortune: a gardening dynasty (2003). Snell, K., Annals of the labouring poor (Cambridge, 1987). Solman, D., Loddiges of Hackney: the largest hothouse in the world (1995).

349

Sparrow Simpson, W., ed, Appendices: List of Bishops of London from the Conquest, Registrum Statutorum et Consuetudinum Ecclesiae Cathedralis Sancti Pauli Londiniensis (1873) 466-8. St. Peter’s Square, London, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Peter's_Square,_London, accessed 5 September 2017. Stead, D., ‘Risk and risk management in English agriculture, c. 1750-1850’, EcHR, 57:2 (2004), 334-61. Swann, B., A study of some London estates in the eighteenth century, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (1964). Tate, W., A domesday of English enclosure acts and awards (Reading, 1978). Taylor, P., The estates of the bishopric of London from the seventh century to the early sixteenth century, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London (1976). Taylor, P., A note on the administrative structure of the manor of Fulham (1971). Taylor, P., A note on the field names of the manor of Fulham (1971). Taylor, P. and McLaren, C., ‘Walham Green and Parsons Green’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), 60-77. Taylor, P. and McLaren, C., ‘Early Fulham and its historians’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), 21-38. Taylor, P. and Whitting, P., John Salter’s map of Hammersmith: some notes and a gazetteer (1971). Thick, M., ‘Garden seeds in England before the late eighteenth century – I. Seed growing’, AgHR, 38:1 (1990), 58-71. Thick, M., ‘Garden seeds in England before the late eighteenth century – II. The trade in seeds to 1760’, AgHR, 38:2 (1990), 105-16. Thick, M., ‘Introduction’, in W, Lawson, A new orchard and garden with The country housewife’s garden (facsimile edition, Totnes, 2003; original, 1618), 15-22.

350

Thick, M., ‘Market gardening in England and Wales’, in J. Thirsk, ed, The agrarian history of England and Wales, Volume 5 1640-1750, II Agrarian change, (Cambridge, 1985), 503-32. Thick, M., The Neat House gardens: early market gardening around London (Totnes, 1998). Thick, M., ‘Root crops and the feeding of London’s poor in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries’ in J. Chartres and D. Hey, eds., English rural society, 1500-1800: Essays in honour of Joan Thirsk (Cambridge, 1990), 279-95. Thick, M., ‘ “Superior vegetables” Greens and roots in London 1660-1750’, in G. Mars and V. Mars, eds., Food, culture and history, 1 (1993), 132-51. Thirsk, J., Alternative agriculture: a history: from the Black Death to the present day (Oxford, 1997). Thirsk, J., Food in early modern England: phases, fads and fashions 1500- 1700 (2007). Thirsk, J., ‘Seventeenth-century agriculture and social change’, in J. Thirsk, ed, The rural economy in England: collected essays (1984), 183-216. Thompson, E.P., ‘The grid of inheritance: a comment’, in J. Goody, J. Thirsk and E.P. Thompson, eds. Family and inheritance: rural society in western Europe 1200-1800 (1978), 320-60. Thompson, R., Economic and social change in a Somerset village, 1700-1851: A micro-history, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, (2004). Trainor, R., Black Country élites: the exercise of authority in an industrialised area 1830-1900 (Oxford, 1993). Turner, M., English parliamentary enclosure: its historical geography and economic history (Folkestone, 1980). Turner, M., Beckett, J., and Afton, B., Agricultural rents in England, 1690-1914 (Cambridge, 1997).

351

Turner, M., Beckett, J., and Afton, B., Farm production in England, 1700-1914 (Oxford, 2001). Uglow, J., A little history of British gardening (2005). Uings, J., Gardens and gardening in a fast-changing urban environment: Manchester 1750-1850, unpublished PhD dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University (2013). UK grid reference finder, http:www.gridreferencefinder.com, accessed 5 September 2017. Unattributed, ‘Brompton Road South side’, in F. Sheppard, ed., Survey of London, Vol. 41, Brompton (1983), 9-32. Unattributed, ‘Economic history: Farm gardening and market gardening’, in P. Croot, ed, A history of the county of Middlesex: Vol. 12, Chelsea (2004), 150- 4. Unattributed, ‘Hammersmith in 1839’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Hammersmith based upon on that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), 123- 41. Unattributed, ‘Settlement and building: Chelsea up to 1680’, in P. Croot, ed, A history of the county of Middlesex: Vol. 12, Chelsea (2004), 14-26. Vann, R., ‘Wills and the family in an English town: Banbury, 1550-1800’, Journal of Family History, 4:4 (1979), 346-67. Varley, J., ‘John Rocque. Engraver, surveyor, cartographer and map-seller’, Imago Mundi, 5:1 (1948), 83-91. Wade-Martins, S., Farmers, landlords and landscapes: rural Britain, 1720-1870 (Macclesfield, 2004). Wade-Martins, S. and Williamson, T., ‘The development of the lease and its role in agricultural improvements in East Anglia 1660-1870’, AgHR, 46:2 (1998), 127-41. Warde, P., ‘The idea of improvement, c. 1520-1799’, in R. Hoyle, ed, Custom, improvement and the landscape in early modern Britain (2011), 127-48.

352

Waugh, D., Geography : an integrated approach (2nd edn., Walton-on –Thames, 1995). Webb, C., London livery company apprenticeship registers, Vol. 6 Gardeners’ Company, 1764-1850 (44 vols., 1997). Webb, C., trans., Middlesex baptisms 1543-1876, www.findmypast.co.uk, last accessed 11 April 2016 Webber, R., The early horticulturalists (Newton Abbot, 1968). Webber, R., Market gardening: the history of commercial flower, fruit and vegetable growing (Newton Abbot, 1972). Weinreb, B., Hibbert, C., Keay, J. and Keay, J., eds., The London encyclopaedia (3rd edition, 2008). Weinstein, R., ‘London’s market gardens in the early modern period’, in M. Galinou, ed, London’s pride: the glorious history of the capital’s gardens (1990), 80- 99. Welch, C., A history of the worshipful company of gardeners (2nd edn., 1900). Wheeldon, A., ‘Broom House swept away’, Fulham and Hammersmith Historic Buildings Group newsletter, 19 (2008). Wheeldon, A., ‘From the Archives. The last farm in Fulham’, Hammersmith and Fulham News (24 March 2009), 26. Whitting, P., ‘A riverside walk’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), 101-11. Whitting, P., ed, A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970). Whitting, P., ed, A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965). Whittle, J., The development of agrarian capitalism: land and labour in Norfolk, 1440-1580 (Oxford, 2000). Willatts, E., ‘Middlesex and the London region Part 79’, in L. Dudley Stamp, ed, The land of Britain: the report of the land utilisation survey of Britain (1937), 117-304.

353

Williams, S., Poverty, gender and life-cycle under the English poor law, 1780-1834 (Woodbridge, 2013). Williamson, T. and Bellamy, B., Property and landscape: a social history of land ownership and the English countryside (1987). Willson, E., ‘Nursery gardens’, in P. Whitting ed, A history of Fulham to 1965 (1970), 238-45. Willson, E., ‘Commercial gardening records: 1. The records of nurserymen’, Archives, 12:55 (1976), 121-6. Willson, E., ‘Farming, market and nursery gardens’, in P. Whitting, ed, A history of Hammersmith based upon that of Thomas Faulkner in 1839 (1965), 88-100. Willson, E., James Lee and the Vineyard nursery (1961). Willson, E., Nurserymen to the world: The nursery gardens of Woking and north- west Surrey and plants introduced by them (Reading, 1989). Willson, E., West London nursery gardens: the nursery gardens of Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith, Kensington and a part of Westminster founded before 1900 (1982). Witham, C. and Oppenheimer, C., ‘Mortality in England and during the 1783-4 Laki craters eruption’, Bulletin of Volcanology, 67:1 (2004), 15-26. Wordie, J., ‘The chronology of English enclosures 1500-1914’, EcHR, 36:4 (1983), 483-505. Worshipful company of gardeners, http://www.gardenerscompany.org.uk/.html, accessed 19 July 2017. Wrightson, K., Ralph Tailor’s summer: a scrivener, his city and the plague (New Haven, CT., 2010). Wrigley, E.A., 'A simple model of London's importance in changing English society and economy 1650-1750', Past and Present, 37 (1967), 44-70. Wrigley, E.A., ‘Birth and baptisms: the use of Anglican baptism registers as a source of information about the number of births in England before the beginning of civil registration’, Population Studies, 31:2 (1977), 281-312.

354

Wrigley, E.A., ‘Introduction’, in E.A. Wrigley, ed, Identifying people in the past (1973), 1-16. Wrigley, E.A., The path to sustained growth. England’s transition from an organic economy to an industrial revolution (Cambridge, 2014). Wrigley, E.A., Poverty, progress and population (Cambridge, 2004). Wrigley, E.A. and Schofield, R., The population history of England and Wales 1541-1871: a reconstruction (Cambridge, 1989). Zemon Davis, N., The return of Martin Guerre (Cambridge, MA., 1983).

WEBSITES Electoral register, St James, Clerkenwell, 1832, www.ancestry.co.uk, accessed 25 July 2017. England and Wales, Civil registration death index, 1837-1915, www.freebmd.co.uk, accessed 30 July 2017. England, Select Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991, www.ancestry.co.uk, accessed 20 June 2017. London apprenticeship abstracts, 1442-1850, www.findmypast.co.uk, accessed 15 July 2017. Metropolitan London parishes, 1851 census, www.genuki.org.uk. The proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913, www.oldbaileyonline.org, accessed 17 July 2017. West Middlesex marriage transcriptions, 1808, www.findmypast.co.uk.

355

356

APPENDIX 1 Map 1 Land use in Fulham and Hammersmith, based on John Rocques map, 1747.

357

358

Map 2 Land use in Fulham & Hammersmith, based on Thomas Milne’s map, 1800.

359

360

Map 3 Land use in Hammersmith based on John Salter’s map, 1830.

361

362

Legend to land-use maps

Commercial gardening Osiers

Grass Arable

Urban development, waste Nurseries land, mansions with parkland, and brickearth.

363

APPENDIX 2 Gardening and agricultural occupational terms used in the Fulham and Hammersmith censuses, 1841, 1851 and 1861. Occupational term 1841 1851 1861 H’smith Fulham H’smith Fulham H’smith Fulham I. EMPLOYERS Market gardener       Market gardener /  greengrocer Market gardener /  fruiterer Market gardener /  dairyman Master gardener   Nurseryman       Nurseryman / seedsman    Nurseryman / florist   Nurseryman & market  gardener Horticulturalist   Horticultural gardener  Agriculturalist   Propagator of plants  Planter  Gardener & planter  Plant grower and  propagator Florist       Florist and market  gardener Florist & seedsman   Gardener and florist  Florist / seedsman/ bulb  & seed importer Seedsman    Seedsman / Shopman/  Shopkeeper Retired gardener  II. SKILLED EMPLOYEES Nurseryman’s collector  Foreman gardener  Market garden foreman   Nursery foreman    Nursery under foreman 

364

II. Skilled Employees 1841 1851 1861 contd. H’smith Fulham H’smith Fulham H’smith Fulham Market gardener’s bailiff  Garden bailiff  Bailiff & gardener  Gardener       Assistant gardener  Practical gardener   Gardener at nursery   Gardener / greengrocer  Gardener / laundryman  Gardener / dentist  Journeyman gardener      Journeyman nurseryman  Market garden salesman   Gardener’s carter   Market garden carman  Carman gardener  Carter to florist  Seed sorter  III. UNSKILLED EMPLOYEES Jobbing gardener     Garden worker /     workman Garden(er’s) labourer       Garden woman       Labouring woman in  garden Market garden labourer    Horticultural labourer  Nursery labourer    Nursery workman  Garden boy/ lad   Gardener servant   Agricultural gardener  Florist’s servant  Florist apprentice  TOTAL 10 10 20 28 26 32 IV. DOMESTIC GARDENERS Gardener (servant)    Domestic gardener     Gentleman’s gardener      Head gardener  Under gardener    Gardener / coachman  TOTAL 2 1 4 5 2 3

365

1841 1841 1851 1851 1861 1861 H’smith Fulham H’smith Fulham H’smith Fulham V. AGRICULTURAL OCCUPATIONS Ag lab       Farmer       Corn dealer / farmer  Yeoman  Husbandman  Farm foreman  Farm servant     Farmer’s carter  Outside farm servant  Farmer’s assistant  Farm(er’s) lab    Farmer’s man  Field lab  Dairyman     Dairyman / book  keeper Horsekeeper /  dairyman Dairyman’s  apprentice Dairywoman   Dairymaid  Dairyman’s lab   Milkmaid  Milk servant  Cowkeeper       Cowkeeper &   dairyman Cowkeeper &  dairywoman Cowkeeper & dairy  Cowkeeper assistant   Cowkeeper labourer  Cowman    Cowboy  Haymaker  Pig feeder  Pig keeper  Pig keeper’s  labourer Sources: See Table 3.3.

366