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.