Category Archives: UK local history

Frederick W. Pearce 1866-1928

From the Thames Valley Times – Wednesday 17 October 1928, page 3

DEATH OF BOROUGH SURVEYOR

A Conscientious Official Whose Life was Given to the Public Service

TOMORROW’S FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS.

Resolutions of Sympathy : Morning Service at Congregational Church Abandoned

By the sudden death on Sunday morning, at his residence in Spencer Road, Strawberry Hill, of Mr. Frederick W. Pearce, the borough surveyor and engineer, Twickenham has lost a valued public official. For thirty years he had given of his best to Twickenham in conscientious and disinterested service and with a generous heart and hand.

The sympathy of the whole town goes out to the widow and family in the heavy loss they have sustained. Mr. Pearce’s life was given to the faithful discharge of his duties.

It is our painful duty to record today the sudden passing, at half-past ten on Sunday morning, of Mr. Frederick W. Pearce, F.S.I. who for thirty years had held the responsible position of surveyor and engineer at Twickenham, first to the Urban District Council, and latterly to the Town Council. He was 62 years of age last April.

A native of Somersetshire, Mr. Pearce came to London as a young man full of that boundless energy and thoroughness which characterised him all through his life. Entering the service of the Wimbledon District Council, he occupied the position of assistant surveyor, and on his leaving was made the recipient of a testimonial placing on record his valued services. He came to Twickenham in October, 1898, to succeed Mr. G. B.Raffin* who had obtained an appointment abroad [South Africa], and on Wednesday next would have celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of his work in the district.

Twickenham was at that time little more than a village, with a population of 1,600, but with the coming of the trains, the cutting through of York Street, which had just been completed and the building developments taking place on all sides, Twickenham was fast passing from a village to a town. With that development came the laying out of new roads, seventy of which were made up under his personal supervision in the succeeding ten years, the District Council of those days having wisely decided to undertake its work on a systematic basis. Richmond Road, then a narrow thoroughfare, was widened as we know it to-day. Further road widenings were made with the extension of the trams towards Hampton Court, Mr. Pearce always taking the long view, which succeeding years have proved the correct one, of wide thoroughfares for the traffic he foresaw.

Then came the acquisition of Radnor House and the raising of its grounds several feet so as to prevent the occasional floodings that would have made riverside gardens an impassability. The Teddington Lock was in course of construction, and Mr. Pearce seized the opportunity by arranging with the Thames Conservancy and the contractors to have the excavated material barged down stream and deposited on the gardens, saving the town many hundreds of pounds in so doing.

As the town grew the need of enlarging and reorganising the fire brigade was taken in hand under Mr. Pearce’s personal direction. The old horsed engines were replaced by motors, the fire station enlarged, and latterly, the chief officer of the brigade installed with living accommodation on the spot.

Another important project of those days which threw a heavy responsibility on his shoulders was the construction of the sewage works and refuse destructor, the work of which was so heavy that, at his suggestion, a consultancy was called in, Mr. Fairley, of Richmond, being engaged by the Council.

With the increasing population came the need of new schools and in the construction of these some of Mr. Pearce’s best work was done, for he was a keen educationist and knew exactly what were the requirements of an elementary school. The Orleans Schools, which were erected in 1910, were followed a year later by the Nelson Schools, which catered for the children in East Twickenham and Whitton areas. One of his last tasks was the building of another school at Whitton to meet the demands of that growing area.

War Time Activities

Then, with the need of an isolation hospital becoming apparent, one was erected at Whitton in 1906 from his plans and under his direction, in such a manner that when extension became necessary last year it was an easy and comparatively inexpensive matter, for he had had an eye to the future in the original building.

Then, with the coming of the war, during which the constructional work of the Council was suspended, he threw himself into the activities the Council undertook for the successful prosecution of the war, and how well he did it was nobly expressed in a few words at the meeting of the Congregational Mothers’ Union on Monday afternoon. He became the fuel officer and the transport officer of the Council, but there was much that he did during this trying period that extended far beyond the limits of those offices.

To the improvement of the riverside path between Marble Hill and Richmond Bridge he devoted much personal attention, being careful to preserve the rural amenities of the walk, particularly in the neighbourhood of Marble Hill, when raising the path and filling in the ditch. Trees there were which had to go but not one was taken down in the clearing which impaired the view from the riverside or from Richmond Hill.

The purchase of York House and the coming of incorporation had placed increasing burdens and responsibilities upon his shoulders. The alterations necessary to York House were much larger than was anticipated when taking over the building, and this work, coupled with the transfer of the offices from the old Town Hall, came at a time when the surveyor and his department were working at their hardest. The Strawberry Vale and St. Margaret’s road improvements were just completed. The demand for Council houses and flats was growing more incessant, the widening of King Street, the pulling down of the old Town Hall, the development of the Richmond House Estate, all had to be dealt with.

The purchase of Orleans Riverside Land, the development of the Cambridge-gardens and of the Cross Deep Estate, and the widening of St. Margaret’s road, Strawberry Vale, and Cross Deep had thrown heavy burdens on his shoulders, coming, as they did, on the top of his other routine work. The Council, realising it, offered him assistance, but he never complained, and worked on cheerfully to the last.

The Church He Loved

Full of boundless energy, even when his health was by no means good, Mr. Pearce, amidst all his manifold public duties, found time for many outside interests. To the Congregational Church on the Green, of which he was deacon for eighteen years, he was a devoted member and supporter, the children, especially, having in him a supporter and friend. He was its church secretary, and it is not too much to say that its existence to-day as a church is in no small measure due to his life and influence. Whilst fully alive to the social side of the church, he never lost sight of the place the church must fill in the spiritual life of its people, and it is a tragic coincidence that a meeting to consider the deepening of the spiritual life of the church was to have been held this week, mainly as a result of the suggestions he had made.

He was a Freemason, being a member both of the Richmond Lodge and Richmond Chapter, and of the Twickenham Rotary Club, whose motto, “Service above self” inspired his everyday life.

Another of his outside activities was the Lower Thames Valley Association of Surveyors, of which he was secretary. He was also a member of the Institute of Municipal and County Engineers and a vice-president of the Twickenham Rifle Club and the Twickenham Philanthropic Society. His many activities and official duties were placing burdens upon the shoulders of the surveyor, which his health, never robust in the past few years would not bear, and of late it had begun to manifest itself and twice on Saturday there were indications whilst he was at work that he was not well. But he worked on, returning to York House in the evening after the office had been closed to attend to some work he desired to see through.

On returning home he complained of feeling unwell and his medical adviser, Dr. Rayner, was called. In the morning he seemed better, but he was persuaded to remain in bed, and almost the last thing he did was to arrange for a message to be sent to the Congregational Church so that the duties to which he usually attended could be discharged to others. Then almost without warning, he passed away in the presence of the members of his family and Dr. G. H. Dupont, the borough medical officer who chanced to be passing the house at the time.

Tomorrow’s Funeral

The funeral will take place to-morrow (Thursday) afternoon. A service will be held at the Congregational Church at 3 and will be attended by the Mayor and Corporation, wearing their robes of office, and the staff at York House and the employees. The service will be conducted by the pastor ( the Rev. J. T. Rhys), who will be assisted by the Rev. Harold Bickley, B.D., of Northampton, a former pastor of the church, who on the occasion of his visit to Twickenham a few weeks ago was the guest of Mr. and Mrs. Pearce. The vicar (the Rev. W. P. Cole-Sheane), and the Mayor’s chaplain (the Rev. James H. Watson), will also assist in the service.

The municipal offices will be closed at 2.15 and the workmen in the employ of the Council will leave work at one o’clock.

EXPRESSIONS OF SYMPATHY

Public Pulpit References

Many have been the expressions of sympathy which Mrs. Pearce and family have received, and at most of the churches on Sunday evening there were references to the sad event.

The flag at the municipal offices was flown at half-mast, and was on Sunday the first indication to many of the missing member of the Corporation.

The Parish Church

The sad news was conveyed to the clergy at the Parish Church on Sunday morning by Alderman F.C. Clark.

At the evening service prayers were offered on behalf of the mourners and the hymn “The radiant morn has passed away” was included in the service.
In the course of his sermon, Prebendary H. J. R. Osbourne dealt with the part that religion played in our daily life, and emphasised the close link between this life and the next. They had had that day, he said, a tragic example of that fact in the sudden passing of the borough surveyor, a most valued public official, who had done a great deal for the town; in fact, he worked too hard. It was a beautiful thought at such times to remember that he had been called to higher service.

Twickenham Brotherhood

Mr F. W. Pearce was to have presided at the meeting of the Twickenham Brotherhood at the Congregational Church, at which the address was given by Mr Harry Gosling M.P., the Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, who resides at Strawberry Hill. The chair was taken by Mr J B Potterill, who made a feeling reference to the death of Mr Pearce.

Mr Gosling said that Twickenham had lost a really valuable public servant. Alas, he had gone, and someone else must take his place. Life today was calling for high endeavour on the part of all of them and while they took off their hats in memory of their late brother, let each of them resolve to work a little harder in good causes than they might hitherto have done.

At the close of the gathering the congregation stood as an expression of their sympathy with Mrs Pearce and her family while the orchestra played Chopin’s “Marche Funebre.”

Congregational Church

The news reached the Congregational Church just as the pastor, the Rev. J. F. Rhys was about to ascend the pulpit for the morning service and was received with something approaching consternation; the deacons at once arranged that the service should be abandoned. The Rev. J T. Rhys who was deeply affected, made brief, but feeling, allusion to the great loss the church had sustained by the death of one of its deacons and its church secretary. He read the 23rd Psalm, offered prayer, and the service concluded.

At the evening service a resolution of sympathy with the family was moved by Mr. W Purchase, seconded by Mr W. Gould and supported by Mr E Dawe, and carried in silence, the members rising.

There were touching tributes of esteem and affection at the Mother’s Meeting of the Congregational Church on Monday afternoon at which a resolution of sympathy was moved by one of the members and supported by the Rev. Luther Caws Burden (Isleworth).

It was at first suggested that the wreath to be sent should be provided out of the funds of the meeting but the members unanimously rejected this saying they desired to be allowed to contribute personally to the wreath they would send.

One of the members expressed the thoughts of the gathering. She would never forget how quietly and kindly he had helped the mothers whilst their husbands were at the war. Another member expressed what the employees felt. “He was the chief of the workmen but a most lovable master.”

Education Committee

At the meeting of the Twickenham Education on Monday evening which held at York House, the chairman (Alderman V. G. Heptonstall) said; Before we commence the usual business it is my sad duty to say a few words of the terrible loss the town suffered yesterday by, as most of you know by now, the sudden death of our borough surveyor to this committee. It seems almost impossible to realise that only last week at the mayoral banquet he was laughing and joking with the rest of us. He had had thirty years service to the town and was a most thorough and capable man. To those who knew him a rather severe exterior covered a heart of gold. His great fault – if he had a fault – was in trying to do too much xxx xxx. He tried to do those things which perhaps he might have passed on to his subordinates. He did this because of his great love of the town. He never hurried. He was always deliberate in his opinions and work and had a restraining influence on many, whom I might call impetuous members of the committee and Council. The town had been built up in the last ten years and many of the things he did we shall like to look upon as monuments to his memory, for the improvement of the borough coincided with his period of office. I have found his help of immeasurable value when attending on our behalf, conference with Government officials. His eloquent and masterful way of presenting our case has been of the greatest assistance to us and the town. He loved Twickenham as few men do, and I feel sure that his death was hastened by the vast amount of work he did. We have suffered a heavy blow but we have yet to realise how exceedingly heavy that blow is. I move that a letter be sent to Mrs Pearce and family conveying the sympathy of Twickenham education authority.

The Town Clerk said: On behalf of the staff of the Corporation, and as town clerk and the education secretary, I should like to take this opportunity of associating myself with what your chairman has just said. Mr Pearce would at the end of next week have completed thirty years service with the District Council and the Corporation. During the whole of that time I have been associated with him in the conduct of the work of the town. By the courtesy of the Mayor, I understand that I shall have the opportunity of amplifying my remarks at the next meeting of the Corporation, but in the meantime I should like to state that by the death of Mr Pearce the whole staff has lost a valued colleague, one whose assistance and advice were always readily and willingly given to any member who required it and xxx whose loss will be deplored in the municipal offices for many years to come.

The resolution was carried in silence, the members rising and standing with bowed heads in memory of a faithful colleague in the public service.

Other Public References

Feeling references to the death was made at the luncheon of the Twickenham Rotary Club on Monday by the president (Councillor C.H. Farthing) and a resolution of sympathy with the relatives was passed.

At the evening service at the Twickenham Green Baptist Memorial Church the pastor, the Rev. H. H. Gardiner expressed the sympathy of his congregation with the family and said how his death would be a great loss, not merely to the Congregational Church of which he was an active member, but to the other churches of the borough.

At the luncheon of the Teddington club yesterday, at which the Rev. Dr. Tatchell gave an address, feeling references to the death of Mr Pearce were made by the chairman (Mr. Carman).

* * * * *

* Mr Pearce’s relationship with the Council was apparently a much happier one than Mr Raffin had enjoyed. At the Council meeting where Mr Raffin’s resignation was reported Councillor Morrow ‘proposed that the resignation be accepted with pleasure’. ‘Where does the pleasure come in?’, asked the chairman. ‘Because it will be a great satisfaction to the residents to know that they are getting rid of him (shouts of ‘oh!’) and in future business will go on more satisfactorily than in the past’, came the reply. Councillor Beard said that he ‘believed Mr Raffin to be as honest and straightforward a man as ever came to Twickenham’. Mr Webb said that when he got notice of the resignation he thought it a happy release for the Council, after all they had gone through. Mr Goatly urged that the motion be not put as the resignation was a matter of fact and could not be refused.

Fred Pearce was appointed at a salary of £260, rising by £20 annual increments to £400. The RTT recorded the votes cast for each candidate: Pearce: 13; Webb: 6; Scott: 2; Towlson: 1; Morley: 1 and Maxwell: 0. One has to feel some sympathy for Mr Maxwell’s public rejection, but no doubt Mr Pearce was gratified by the clear majority he received. He was later described as Twickenham Council’s greatest public asset. According to a contemporary sketchwriter, “Yes I did say so, and meant what I said. I am sorry I cannot make myself plainer, but the facts are as I have stated and I have nothing to withdraw or add” would be his standard reply to anyone who questioned what he said.


Thanks to Dr Dick Cashmore for bringing this account to my attention and to Annie Morris for transcribing it

The British School

The British School and other schools meeting on the church site

Lady Shaw’s school provided the first known home for the Church, and during the Victorian period the Church was to repay the debt by providing a home for several schools. These were not run by the Church itself, but by the local committee of the British and Foreign Schools Society (BFSS). The society concentrated on training teachers at its colleges. The first, at Borough Road, London opened in 1808 and moved to Isleworth in 1890. The society would only provide teachers for a British School on condition that the school was “open to the children of parents of all religious denominations … the lessons for reading shall consist of extracts from the Holy Scriptures; no catechism or peculiar religious tenet shall be taught in the school, but every child shall be enjoined to attend regularly the place of worship to which its parents belong“.

The BFSS Annual Report 1897 ( from which the last extract is taken) included a list of British Schools that were now closed. Included in the list is “Turnham Green Lady Shaws’s School est. 1834” – this almost certainly refers to Twickenham. Lady Shaw’s schoolroom was registered for public worship in December 1835, when the schoolmistress was Mary Clift. The 1836 BFSS report shows 66 girls attending, each paying 1d per week. Lady Shaw’s school also appears in the P.O. London Directory 1845, Mrs Sarah Draper being mistress.

This school must have subsequently closed, because in 1861 a British School for Boys was opened in the Baptist schoolroom, to be followed the next year by the Girls school which “met under the direction of Miss Hollingshed in the schoolroom adjacent to the Independent Chapel … very kindly placed free of rent for the use of the Committee“. About 80 boys and 50 girls attended the schools, each paying 2d per week. The Secretary of the schools was Mr J.N. Goatly. Within a decade the school ran into problems. In July 1871 a teacher, Mr Langley, resigned on being advised “that the school was to be closed when I give the holidays next Friday, the reason being that they (the committee) were much involved in debt...” . On Christmas Day 1876 Abraham Slade wrote in his Journal: “The last year has been an eventful one… the turn out of nearly all the congregationalists & school over to the Baptist… “. This was an unsettled time for the church which was dissolved in 1879 then reconstituted in 1882.

The Church minutes record that the school re-opened on December 31st 1883 under the management of a new committee chaired by Augustin Spicer. “116 children were present from 4 to 13 years of age“. A manuscript note states that in 1882 “Miss Ramsay, Head of Briar Road Infants School, took the lot of them to the ‘old British School’ in First Cross Road, because the rearrangement of the Briar Road building was unfinished“. The truth of this is uncertain but a return for the school, dated December 1884, survives in the BFSS archives. It is signed by Miss L.J.Ramsey, “certificated 1st Class” teacher. There were 240 children on the roll and an average attendance of 147. The need for the BFSS and other colleges can be gauged by the statistic that in 1881 less than half the teachers in the country were certificated, and of these, one third had not been to college.

Miss Ramsey was to run her school for the next 30 years. During its first decade the school appears to have become independent of the BFSS. The 1897 Annual Report mentions the Twickenham school (founded 1861) in the category of closed schools, immediately under the entry for Lady Shaw’s School mentioned above. Arthur Brazier, who attended the school about 1890, recalled:”my parents sent me to Miss Ramsey’s school … and we had to pay 4d a week … Two old ladies used to run this school – I stopped there about two years and then I transferred to the Archdeacon Cambridge School, … my parents were better off then – they only had to pay 2d a week“.

Further competition came when Trafalgar School opened in 1904, providing a free education and most of the children transferred there. One to move was Emily Potterill (Mrs E.Cumber), a member of the Church until her death in the 1980’s. When she attended Miss Ramsey’s school, at the start of the century, there were two classes. One, taken by Miss Ramsey herself, was for the older children (8-12), and the other, taken by a Miss Henley, was for the younger children (3-8). About thirty boys and girls attended. The charge of 6d per week was waived in cases of hardship. Miss Ramsey removed her school from First Cross Road in 1906, the Church waiving the rent she owed. She was evidently still running a school in 1914 – that March the Church considered a request from her to use the premises, but no agreement was reached.

See ‘A Century of Education: being the Centenary History of the British and Foreign Schools Society 1808-1908’ H.B.Binns 1908. Sadly most of the BFSS archives were destroyed during the Blitz.


 

The church’s founder: Lady Amelia Shaw

The history of Twickenham United Reformed Church (Twickenham Congregational Church to 1972)

The church’s founder

Early accounts of the church history may be inaccurate in many respects but all agree that the formation of the church was due in no small part to Lady Amelia Shaw. The little that is known about her is outlined here.

Lady Shaw was the second wife of Sir Robert Shaw, a Dublin banker and politician of Scottish ancestry.

Sir Robert’s great great grandfather, William Shaw, went to Ireland and fought for King William at the Battle of the Boyne in 1689, and was rewarded by the grant of land there. William’s great grandson, Robert (snr) moved to Dublin in the mid-eighteenth century, prospered as a merchant and became Accountant General of the Post Office. In 1785 he acquired Terenure House, an estate of 35 acres. His eldest son, ‘our’ Robert, was born on 29th January 1774.

On 7th January 1796 Robert married Maria, daughter and heiress of Abraham Wilkinson, and as a dowry received £10,000 together with a 110 acre estate, Bushy Park (possibly named after our local park here in Teddington) which adjoined Terenure House. Six months later Robert Sr. died leaving his son in possession of both estates. He sold Terenure House in 1806 and Bushy Park House became the family home (and was occupied by members of the Shaw family until 1951). See the Bushy Park House and Terenure College, pages on the Terenure 2000 web site for more information on these estates and a picture of Robert Shaw.

Robert had a dual career, as a partner in Shaw’s Bank (merged into the Royal Bank of Ireland in 1837) and as a politician. From 1798 he was an MP in the Irish Parliament (voting against the union with England) and served Dublin as its MP at Westminster from 1804-26. He was created a baronet (i.e. becoming Sir Robert) on 17 August 1821, being formally invested by George IV when he visited Ireland in 1822.

Maria died in 1831 having borne nine children. Sir Robert’s cousin, Bernard Shaw, had died in 1826 and Sir Robert had provided Bernard’s widow, Frances, with a cottage on the Terenure estate where she lived for the next 45 years. One of Frances’ grandchildren, George Bernard Shaw, was to be a regular visitor. On several occasions Sir Robert proposed to Frances, but he was turned down each time

… and now to matters of more local interest

The Times, Friday July 4th 1834: “On Wednesday the 2d inst, at Twickenham [Parish] Church, by the Rev Mr Snow, Sir Robert Shaw, Bart of Bushy-Park, County of Dublin, to Amelia Spencer of Twickenham, daughter of the late Benjamin Spencer MD, formerly of Bristol“. Dissenters would only be allowed to be married in their own chapels after the passing of the Marriage Act 1836. Amelia, in her early forties became the second Lady Shaw. Part of the marriage settlement involved the purchase of a house in Twickenham (see the church site) which was placed in trust for her (at this time married women could not own property). The trustees were Frederick Shaw (second son of Sir Robert), Henry Pownall (local landowner and owner of much of the Great Tithe) and John Bridges.

On December 4th 1835 Hull Terrell, Solicitor, made an application to the Bishop of London to register as a place of worship “a certain building situate in the parish of Twickenham in the county of Middlesex in the diocese of London in the occupation of Mary Clift called Lady Shaws school room to be used as a chapel for religious worship by protestant Dissenters …” and this was duly registered on December 28th.

In 1840 the church called its first minister, Benjamin Kluht (see the first pastorate). Following his ordination service on March 10th 1841, “a number of ministers and friends dined at the George Inn. Sir Robert Shaw presided; and his excellent lady was also present“.

Three years later Lady Shaw gave up some of her garden and advanced the money for the construction of the first chapel: “The foundation stone of a new Independent chapel was laid .. on 10th April 1843. The ceremony was performed by Sir Robert Shaw, Bart, acting for his excellent lady, who has been the principal means, under God, of introducing and sustaining the gospel in the neighbourhood, and who, beside giving the ground on which the chapel will stand, contributes liberally towards its erection.“. The financial side was formalised in the 1848 trust deed, where the trustees accepted liability for a debt of £550, being the sum advanced by her for the construction of the chapel.

The Times, 13th March 1849: “The venerable Sir Robert Shaw expired after a rather brief illness on Saturday evening (10th) at his seat, Bushy-Park, in the County of Dublin, in the 76th year of his age. … He is succeeded in his title and principal estates by his eldest son, Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Shaw, and a portion of the County of Dublin estates, the property of the late Lady Shaw, devolve on the Rt. Hon. Frederick Shaw, as her second son“. The present holder of the title, Sir Robert Shaw, 7th Bart, lives in Calgary, Canada. A manuscript note in the church archives states that quarrels between Lady Shaw and a Mrs Litchfield led to the closing of the chapel for a period in 1849, but more probably this was connected with Sir Robert’s death.

Amelia remained in the house in Twickenham but by 1851 had acquired a house at 10/11 Kensington Gore [subsequently renumbered to 8], a few yards from the site of the Great Exhibition. The Census lists her at this address, aged 60, with two servants also listed. The P.O. London Directory 1851 and 1852 editions Court Directory list her as living at ‘Kensington Gore and Twickenham’. She died at her Kensington home, aged 68, on 11th January 1860 and was buried in the catacombs at Brompton Cemetery.

Unfortunately for the church, Lady Shaw died intestate, with no surviving close relatives. On 28th January 1861 Letters of Administration were granted to Edward Payson, an American farmer who was the sole executor of the will of Penelope Martin, Lady Shaw’s late cousin. The estate was assessed as being just under £10,000 (probably something like £1m in today’s money). An advertisement in the London Gazette, April 9th 1861, requesting any claims against her estate cites her as ‘Lady Amelia Shaw of No 8, Kensington Gore, London, and of Tay Down House, Brighton …’. Payson claimed back the money Lady Shaw had advanced twenty years earlier, temporarily leaving the church in a very uncertain position. Fortunately steps were taken to raise this money and secure the future of the church.

 

.
See ‘The Shaws’, Nathaniel Harris, Dent, 1977, Sir Robert and Lady Shaw’s Marriage: The Times 4th July 1834; Sir Robert Shaw’s obituary: The Times 13th March 1849, Gentlemen’s Magazine May 1849, p.541; Lady Shaw’s obituary: Gentlemen’s Magazine March 1860, p.306

Three prominent members

The history of Twickenham United Reformed Church (Twickenham Congregational Church to 1972)

Three prominent members

In March, April and May 1998 the church newsletter carried short biographies of the three members known to have appeared in the pages of Who’s Who and they are reproduced below.

But to place them in context, first read Tony Bryer’s editorial from the May 1998 newsletter:

As soon as I finished writing the first of the three mini biographies of former members who made the pages of Who’s Who, I realised that this might be open to misinterpretation – does it look like name dropping or imply that we value some people more than others? This was certainly not my intention.

I think that it is more than coincidental that all three were among the 62 people to join our church during the eventful pastorate of F.T.Simmonds (our minister from 1899-1907). Before then the recognisable names on our membership roll are those of local shopkeepers and tradesmen. At the turn of the century new development brought in those engaged in middle class occupations, and the nature of the area – reflected in the membership of our church – changed, not for the first or last time.

When I was a young person, it seemed that most of our church members were civil servants, teachers or nurses; now, as in late Victorian times, we also have a number of members who run their own small businesses. If this newsletter has come through your letterbox, rest assured that we are all just ordinary people like you and your neighbours, and you would, we hope, feel at home among us if you wished to join us one Sunday.

But what of the other 59 members who joined our church during Mr Simmonds’ pastorate? Some we know about, indeed some our older members may remember a few of them, but most are now forgotten – but this does not mean that their contribution to their church and community was any less valuable. In the past Janet Lees has reminded us about some of the un-named women who play a key part in the Bible narrative – and there are many men too. So too in our century.

More than forty years ago a French priest, Michel Quoist, wrote a book called ‘Prayers of Life’. On of the meditations is called ‘The Brick’. It ends:

“I thought, Lord, of that brick buried in the darkness at the base of that big building. No one sees it, but it accomplishes its task and the other bricks need it. Lord what difference whether I am on the roof-top or in the foundations, as long as I stand faithfully at the right place?”

May we each be ready to faithfully serve in the place God has given us, whether in the public eye or not.

Tony Bryer

John Allen Harker, 1870-1923

John Allen Harker CBE D.Sc. was born in Alston, Cumbria, in 1870 where his father was Congregational minister. After school in Stockport (his father moved there in 1871), he then studied at Manchester and Tübingen (Germany) universities. He came to work at the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, rising to Chief Assistant and Head of Thermometry. From 1916 he was Director of Research at the Ministry of Munitions. He wrote scientific papers, served on government committees and visited the USA and Canada on behalf of the British government. He was on board the Cunard liner Andania when it was torpedoed off the Irish coast in January 1918 with a loss of seven lives. In 1921 he went into private practice, but died in 1923 aged just 53.

Dr & Mrs Harker lived in Teddington, firstly in Kingston Road, then moving to ‘Alston’, Queens Road: we may guess that he named the house (still there) after his birthplace.

Dr Harker’s delightful account of his first visit to our church (1903?) appears in my church history, ‘Chapel Next the Green’: “Good Mr Purchase was in the porch smiling and gave him a hymn book and showed him into a seat. He did not remember what the sermon was about, and there was not a large congregation, and it was not a grand service, but he went home and told his wife, and after his wife had been to a service, he didn’t know which of them was the more delighted“.

Both became church members in May 1904, just after he had been elected to the Church Committee (which from 1903-9 took the place of the Diaconate); subsequently they both played an active part in church life until around 1920-21 by which time they had moved from the area. Dr Harker’s church membership was formally transferred to Whitefield’s Memorial Church in December 1921


Peter Galloway Fraser, 1862-1925

The second of our three members to appear in Who’s Who, [Peter] Galloway Fraser JP is the one of whom least is known. As you might guess, he was a Scot, who came to London as a Parliamentary reporter for the Dundee Chronicle. In 1890 he went to work for George Newnes, ultimately becoming editor of ‘Tit-Bits‘. In 1899 he moved from Putney to 13 Strawberry Hill Road where he and his wife lived until his death in September 1925.

Mr Fraser joined the church in 1904 (on the same day as Dr John Harker), having been elected to the Church Committee the year before. He served on the Committee until 1906 but does not appear to have held any other church office after this.

On his death, fellow editor and church member, J.H.Broad, recorded in the Richmond & Twickenham Home Journal, “His editorship of Tit-Bits was perhaps his most outstanding position … Since his retirement he has taken extensive interest in local affairs and has occupied some very important positions [unfortunately not detailed]. Twickenham has lost a most capable and loveable gentleman“. In contrast, the Richmond & Twickenham Times [3.10.25] felt that “the fact that he was at one time editor of Tit Bits, not generally regarded as a serious weekly production, does not convey any idea of his abilities … His best efforts appeared in the Scottish papers“. Does anyone know more about him?


Clifford Copeland Patterson, 1879-1948

In contrast to my previous two subjects, there is no shortage of material about the last of the three members to appear in Who’s Who. Sir Clifford Copeland Paterson, son of a tanner and leather merchant, was born in Stoke Newington in 1879. After school he trained in general and electrical engineering then came to the newly established NPL in 1903, specialising in light and lighting. He was awarded an OBE in 1916 for his work on the Paterson-Walsh aircraft height finder.

Mr and Mrs Paterson joined the church in 1906, on transfer from Stamford Hill. They lived at 28 Clifden Road, then 10 Walpole Gardens. Both were keen sailors and gardeners. He served as Sunday School Superintendent (383 children in 1908!), Church Secretary from 1907-1916 and was a Deacon until moving to Oxhey in 1923.

In 1916 the Osram Lamp Works in Hammersmith invited Mr Paterson to set up a research department for them (before the war they had depended on German technology), but he was not free to accept such a post during the war. Five days after the Armistice, Hugo (later Lord) Hirst, a founder of GEC asked him to become founder director of the GEC Research Laboratories (GEC having taken over Osram), a post he held until his death in July 1948.

The labs were initially housed at Hammersmith, 71 staff moving to a purpose- built facility in North Wembley in 1922. Work on filament lamps naturally developed into electronic valves. During World War II the staff grew to more than a thousand and the work on searchlights, camouflage, radio, and radar was to play a key part in the war effort, rewarded by a knighthood in 1946.

Mr Paterson was President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 1930-1 and was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1942: they now hold an annual Clifford Paterson lecture. ‘The GEC Research Laboratories 1919-84‘ and ‘A Scientist’s War – the war diary of Sir Clifford Paterson, 1939-45‘, both by Clayton & Algar, detail his scientific work. as does the 21-page obituary published by the Royal Institution. The latter notes the influence of his Christian faith on the way in which he ran the GEC labs, seeking to create an culture of co-operation and partnership.


Last updated 21 April 2025

Trial by Jury

Among the musical works I enjoy are Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic operas. My first encounter with them was their 1875 ‘Trial by Jury’. The plot concerns a “breach of promise of marriage” lawsuit in which the judge and legal system are the objects of light-hearted satire.

In 1881 The Graphic noted that when considering such cases, “the Court has to decide whether any promise has ever been made, and this entails the reading of many love-letters which, however amusing to people in general, cannot but be exceedingly painful to both of the parties concerned, while occasionally it is an absolute waste of public time.” One such case, in early 1906, concerned New Malden (Surrey) undertaker Frederick Paine, then aged 35.

Was this sad case of interest to anyone outside the NW Surrey area? Apparently so: amongst the many newspapers carrying the story were the Hartlepool Daily Mail, Drogheda Conservative, Derby Daily Telegraph and Halifax Daily Guardian. The Dublin Evening Mail helpfully told its readers that Mr. Paine was “a gentleman of very ample proportions and a gentle voice” whilst Laura Mills was a “young lady of great literary gifts”. The Belper News rated it an amusing breach of promise case. Most news reports ran to several hundred words (probably from agency copy), but the Surrey Comet’s report ran to nearly 3,000!


Reynolds News, Sunday 04 February 1906, reported the case thus:

LAUNDRESS OBTAINS DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF PROMISE

In the King’s Bench Division on Monday. before Mr. Justice Darling, and a jury, Miss Laura Charlotte Mills now of Merton-road, Southfield, sued Mr. Frederick Owen [William] Paine, an undertaker and house and estate agent. of New Malden, Surrey, for damages for breach of promise of marriage.

Defendant pleaded that the relations between him and Miss Mills were purely platonic. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that the latter assisted her brother in a laundry, and defendant in partnership with her mother, carrying on the business of an undertaker, ironmonger. and house agent. The parties became acquainted in 1894, where they were both living at the time. He became “struck with her,” said counsel, and asked her to marry him. The reaction came in May, 1904, after “hundreds of letters” had passed between the lovers, and the undertaker had put off the marriage several times. He became very cold and terminated the engagement.

The lady’s counsel then gave the Court a number of glimpses into the voluminous correspondence of the pair. In one of the first the swain signed himself, “Scorcher.” ”

“A Lot of Humbug”

Here is a note dated January 4, 1901 :

My Dear – I expect you will be looking for a letter from me, so I must not disappoint you. I well know what it is waiting for the post coming in. I think there is nothing more trying.

I have a very bad headache. I have been to chapel twice and church once this week. At the latter I was present at a christening. It struck me as being a lot of humbug, and I wondered whether I should ever be called upon to play a similar part in a similar ceremony. It was the first baby of a newly-married couple. The Vicar … said it was a beautiful baby, and ever so good.—

With love, yours faithfully. FRED

A letter of his, in a different strain, ran thus. Its date was May 25.1905 :-

Madame, I have received a letter from your solicitor. l am astonished at audacity. After all the kindness and sympathy I have shown you, and after all I have done, you threaten to blackmail me because you failed to inveigle me to marry you. Since you abuse what intended for a purely platonic friendship, I feel justified in making use of your letters, all of which I have kept and also if I find certain relatives are assisting are you, I shall feel justified in giving them certain statements you made concerning their moral character.

Mr. Moyses, for defendant, said Mr. Paine would deny that he made a promise to marry. He was an undertaker, and a funeral was more in his line than a marriage. In the witness box Mr. Paine emphatically denied that he ever made a promise. The jury, after deliberating for a quarter of an hour, awarded plaintiff £50 damages and costs.


Two things surprise me about this case:

Firstly, before writing this piece I would have expected such cases to be the preserve of the upper and upper middle classes, perhaps where an engagement had been announced in The Times or The Lady and then broken off, but here we have a laundry assistant and undertaker in the High Court. Virtually all the cases thrown up by a search on ‘Breach of Promise’ in the British Newspaper Archive concern ‘ordinary’ people: a housekeeper and baker, a nurse and grocer, a parlourmaid and electrician and so on. Confining the search to ‘London Evening Standard’ and ‘1906’ pulls up 125 reports, no doubt all lapped up by a prurient audience.

Secondly, the verdict. In his summing up his Lordship said that “in the letters there was not one word about marriage. If there was a promise of marriage it was remarkable that it was not mentioned in the letters.” I read this as a strong hint to the jury to dismiss the claim, but they didn’t. The £50 damages (+ costs) would have equated to around a year’s wages for Miss Mills, a not insubstantial amount.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments.


P.S. About what happened to Laura Mills. I know nothing. Do you? Frederick Paine went on to marry but the marriage ended in divorce. On his death in 1945 his undertaking business, then one of the largest in the country passed to his sister, then in turn to London Necropolis, Alliance Property, Great Southern Group, SCI and then Dignity plc. Breach of promise lawsuits in UK were abolished from 1 January 1971 (More).

Mills v. Paine, 1906 – Surrey Comet report

Mills v. Paine: Surrey Comet Saturday 03 February 1906

Taken from the British Newspaper Archive with minor editing and paragraphing for readability

NEW MALDEN BREACH OF PROMISE.

New Malden Undertaker, “With a Heart of Stone”

 Lady Gets £50 Damages.

A curious plea was put forward by Frederick William Paine of Coombe-road, New Malden, when in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of the High Court of Justice, on Monday, before Mr. Justice Darling and a common jury. He was sued by Miss Laura Charlotte Mills, of 406 Merton-road, Southfields, who alleged that after a long courtship he refused to marry her. Defendant stated that although he walked out with the plaintiff and affectionate letters passed, the relationship between them was merely platonic, and he had declared all along that he never intended to marry her.

Mr. Alan Macpherson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Moyses for the defendant.

Mr. Macpherson in opening the case, said the plaintiff assisted her brother in a laundry business, and kept house for him, and the defendant was a partner with his mother in a business as an undertaker and also as an ironmonger and house agent. In 1898 the plaintiff and her brother were living at Malden, where defendant carried on his business, They were about to leave for Fulham, and the parties became acquainted through the plaintiff going to the defendant’s shop to purchase goods.

The defendant was struck with the plaintiff and wrote asking her to give him her address at Fulham. She did so and the defendant wrote and asked to be allowed to come and see her and walk out with her. The plaintiff consented, and, although they walked out together the plaintiff did not see her way to become engaged to the defendant. The plaintiff told him so, and the defendant said he thought the acquaintance had better terminate and it did. In 1899 the defendant wrote several letters, of which the plaintiff took no notice, but at the end of that year she wrote and told him he might call again.

Another Lady in the Story

In 1900 the defendant, continued counsel, told the plaintiff that he had become engaged to another lady, and she said that in that case there was no point in continuing the acquaintanceship, and it was again broken off. In the summer they met, and the defendant spoke to the plaintiff. She wrote reproaching him for doing so, and he replied and asked her to see him. When they met he told her that his engagement with the other was at an end. He asked that the acquaintance should be renewed, and she said she was willing to renew it on terms of friendship, but that there must be no engagement.

Defendant came to see the plaintiff in October, and in December asked plaintiff to become engaged to him, telling her that the marriage would not take place for some time. That was on Boxing-day, 1900. The lady’s parents were dead, but the defendant spoke to her brother who offered no objection, although the defendant told him that the marriage could not take place for two years, and Mr. Mills said that personally he was against long engagements.

In 1901 there was unfortunately a dispute about some business matter, but, notwithstanding that the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant were undisturbed. The defendant came to see the plaintiff twice a week and took her out. A very large number of letters passed between them and he (the learned counsel) had about a hundred on each side in his possession.

Although the lady had no mother, she had an aunt, a Mrs. Gaskin, and the plaintiff often took the defendant to the house of that lady. The plaintiff told Mrs. Gaskin of their engagement, and the lady asked Mr. Paine about the marriage. In 1902 when they were at the Gaskins’ house, the defendant said, “By this time next year we shall have a house of our won, and I hope you, Mrs. Gaskin, and your daughter, will come to see us.” The relations between the plaintiff and defendant continued till the beginning of 1903, when the defendant suggested another year’s delay, to which the plaintiff assented,

A Miserable Bank Holiday.

At the beginning of 1904, said Mr. Macpherson, the defendant suggested a further postponement, and the plaintiff assented, the relations of the parties remaining the same. In the middle of 1904 the plaintiff observed a change in the defendant’s manner towards her. On August Bank-holiday he did not take her out. She wrote to him and said if she had done anything wrong she was very sorry. The defendant did not reply, although until the end of the year from time to time he came to see her.

In the beginning of 1905, unfortunately, she was late for an appointment through missing a train. After that defendant came to see her again. As she did not hear from him in May, she went with her cousin, Miss Gaskin, to see him, and told him that he was treating her very badly. She asked if he intended to break off his engagement with her, and he said “Yes.”

Counsel proceeded to read extracts from letters written by the defendant. He. had begun with “Dear Miss Mills,” and then by easy stages he got to “My dear Laura,” “dear Laurie,” and “My Darling.” At an early age in the courtship he signed himself “The Scorcher.”

One letter ran :- “My dear Laurie, – I expect you will have been looking out for a letter from me. I well know what it is to watch the post. I have been to chapel twice and church once lately. On the latter occasion I was present at a christening and I wondered whether I should ever have to take part in a similar ceremony. It was the first baby of a young couple. The people said it was a beautiful baby, and ever so good. With love, yours truly, Fred

Mr. Macpherson tantalised his audience by reading only the beginning and end of a letter: “My dear little funny little girl…. Yours faithfully, The Rum ‘un.”

Writing to his sweetheart about prospects, Mr. Paine said: “Keep your pecker up, pet. I can see a good thing coming on. I have been paying special attention to laundries.”

Advice to Brides.

I am hanged if I can write love letters” said the young undertaker in another epistle. Sympathetically. he referred to her toil in the laundry:

I do hope you are not fatiguing yourself with the **** laundry work. It won’t be for ever, and by placing our trust in Him who does all things well I have trust in the future.”

After having had a lecture, he wrote:

You mean to give me a piece of your mind and I deserve it. I am afraid I am more like the thing that makes bacon than the little thing that bills and coos.”

In one of the letters a cutting from a newspaper giving advice to brides was referred to:

“Immediately after the wedding promise one another never to wrangle and never to have any secrets from one another. Then your souls will grow together as one.”

This, said counsel, showed, he supposed, that one might get excellent advice even from the halfpenny Press (Laughter).

The Learned Judge: I am not going to make any judicial pronouncement about it. (Laughter)

He also gave the lady a ring, but made the stipulation that she should not wear it on the “engaged” finger, and once when she did so, there was a tiff. But the relationship went on and Miss Mills was so satisfied that she was to be married that she accepted a present of house linen from her sister. Then came the falling away of Mr. Paine, his failure to write to Miss or to see her, an attempt at an understanding the gentleman blunt repudiation, and then this extraordinary letter sent to the lady :-

New Malden, May 25th, 1906.

Without Prejudice.

To Miss L. C. Mills:

Madame – I have received a letter from a solicitor, Mr. Lay. I am astonished at your audacity. After all the kindness and sympathy I have shown you, after all my endeavours to sweeten your miserable existence, you threaten to blackmail me because you have failed to inveigle me into marriage, which you know well I have never desired. Have I not reproached you for persisting in these endeavours? As far as I am concerned you are as virtuous as when I first knew you, but this is through no wish of yours. When you have tempted me, I remembered what you have you told me about a certain relation of yours and knew your object. When you induced me to visit your aunt and cousin, I soon expected a trap; but still out of kindness of heart, I allowed the friendship to continue at the same time pointing out to you times out of number how useless it was to continue is with the object you had in view for reasons you persisted in turning a deaf ear to.

It is most painful to me to have to write to one for whom I have had the kindest regard but since you abuse what was  intended for a purely Platonic companionship, I am reluctant, but feel justified in making use of your letters, which fortunately I have retained or have not destroyed since the first commencement of our acquaintance; also, if I find that certain relatives are assisting you, I shall feel justified in to them certain statements you have made to me concerning their moral character.

I am instructing my solicitor to deal with the matter, and to whom I am handing the whole of your letters for the purpose of defending the action I am threatened with.

Yours faithfully,

F. W. PAINE

The Lady’s Appeal.

A few extracts from Miss Mills’ letters were also read by counsel:

Dear Fred – “You are a curious article. I feel like a fish out of water. Just give me a tip what to do to make things right. I have just been thinking that you have got a heart of ice in you. If this is so, I shall have to melt it. Had you heart turned to show that there is no there is no way of touching it? I have not even had one little letter for months. Let us try and be happy again.

Plaintiff was then called, and in bearing out the opening statements aid that on Boxing Day they went out together. Defendant asked her if she liked him well to be married to him in a year or two, and would wait, and she promised she would. Defendant told her he was in partnership with his mother. He had had a business in the Waterloo-road, and  had sold it when his father died, and had put money in the Malden business. He said he was worth about £1,000. In the spring of 1901 the defendant gave her a ring.

Plaintiff then produced a gold turquoise ring and handed it to his lordship who passed it to the jury. Plaintiff said the defendant asked her not to wear the ring as an engagement ring, as it was not good enough

Mr Moyser: Whenever there was any talk about marriage did not the defendant always refuse to consent to a marriage, and whenever you approached it did it not cause a little difference between you for the time being? – I never spoke of marriage unless he spoke first. Is it not a fact that up to this day you have never been introduced to defendant’s mother? – Yes.

When the acquaintance between you was renewed again, was it not renewed at your special request? – I don’t remember it. Did he not ,whenever the subject of marriage cropped up, give you to understand his means would not permit it? – No, never.

Did you not often refer to your hard work at the laundry? – No, I did not. Did you not speak of you hard times, and say you were in want of money, and did he not give you a few shillings? – No, I never borrowed money.

Did he not say the ring was given him by a customer, and that he would give it to you? He said the ring was made a present to him by a person for whom he had made a valuation. When he gave it to me he said it was not good enough to wear as an engagement ring. I did, however, once wear it on my engagement finger, and as he was cross about it took it off.

Why did you write him a letter soon after saying: “I hope you are not cross with me for the trick about the ring. Do just forget it, and I won’t do it any more”? He seemed cross, and I thought I would write him. He asked me if I could forget him, and I said, ”No I could not.”

I must put it to you, did you say anything about using mouse or rat poison? – Plaintiff did not reply.

His Lordship: Did you say anything about trying to forget him with the assistance of rat poison? – I might have said it.

Mr Moyses: In a letter written to the defendant on May 18th, 1901, you say: “Hope you found your black girl. You don’t say anything about her, Is she very nice?” What did you mean? – He wanted me to go out with him and I said I could not, and he then said he would find a black one if I did not.

You signed that letter, as you did many others, “Yours sincerely”? – Yes. I told him should sign them no different. In another letter you write: “I believe you have someone down there. I shall have to run down and see.”

His Lordship: If this is only a platonic friendship with her, why should he not have another platonic friendship?

Mr Moyses: Why should he not? (To plaintiff): I see in another of your letters you say: “I went out on Sunday and met such a nice gentleman.” Who was the gentleman? It was a nautical friend of both.

I put it to you that it was an extraordinary thing for a lady to write to a man who was to be her husband. – He was known to both of us.

About this time you went away to the country on a visit and you write him: “Just off to see a young farmer. He is single, so there may be a chance yet. (Laughter) Do you say in the face of that letter that there was an engagement that you should be husband and wife? – Yes

The Defence

Mr Moyses, for the defendant, contended that the letters which had been read negatived the idea that the parties contemplated marriage. “This,” he said, “is not the first time a man has made a fool of himself over a woman, and it will not be the last. You, gentlemen of the jury , know that as well as anyone.”(Loud laughter). The defendant was carrying on a correspondence with Miss Mills, but he was an undertaker; he was averse to marriage; probably a funeral would have been more in his line. (Laughter)

The defendant, who said he was 35 years of age and gave evidence affirming what had been put to the plaintiff in cross-examination and denied by here. There was, he said, simply a friendship between them, and he positively denied that he had ever promised marriage. He had always tried to avoid being drawn into such an action as this. The business was his mother’s, and although his name was used he was not a partner. The plaintiff’s representatives could have seen the books but had not done so.

Cross-examined, he denied calling the plaintiff his darling though sometimes he signed himself “with fondest love”. The friendship warmed up about 1903. The plaintiff made a great fuss of him and he liked that. (Laughter) He did not always kiss the plaintiff on meeting and parting but sometimes he did, though not in the presence of others. The relationship was one of companionship.

Did you have any affection for her? – I had a sincere regard for her. One would not go to see a person he did not like. (Laughter)

Did you love her? – Oh, yes, I loved her.

Do you say you absolutely made it clear to her that you would never marry her? – Yes.

Cross-examined. – The letters about future happiness were merely letters of sympathy. The relationship was purely platonic.

Summing up, his Lordship said that in the letters there was not one word about marriage. If there was a promise of marriage it was remarkable that it was not mentioned in the letters. The jury had no right to award damages just because the defendant had made love to the plaintiff. They must be satisfied there was a promise. If the relationship had been an immoral one it would be easy to understand but it was not. This sort of liking was common in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Women who could write then – there were very few – used to write affectionate letters and there was no suggestion of immoral association. Was that sort of thing done and gone in the twentieth century? According to defendant it was not. He found the woman unhappy and wrote her friendly letters.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff with £50 damages. Judgement accordingly with costs.


 

Who was Mr Bridges?

From a young age I was keen on making things using odd bits of wood. The Showmax hardware shop on Waldegrave Road had a box of timber offcuts, sixpence each, more than a few sold to me. Other boys got footballs and cricket bats as Christmas and birthday presents; I was thrilled to receive a hand drill for my ninth or tenth birthday. What I dreamed of, though, was the day when I would be old enough, responsible enough and strong enough to have an electric drill. In the years before this milestone was reached, I had to make do with the small ads all promising a wonderful assortment of ‘freebies’ since discounting was not then allowed.

The first portable handheld drill was created by in 1895 by Stuttgart brothers Wilhelm & Carl Fein whose company still makes top class power tools. In 1917 the first trigger-switch, pistol-grip portable drill was patented by Black & Decker USA. In the UK the first DIY drill seems to have been Wolf’s Cub, introduced in the late 1940s; my dad owned one with a number of attachments, but I don’t remember him ever using it.

Which? magazine published its first report on electric drills in December 1963. They tested 15 models from these makers: Black & Decker (5); Stanley-Bridges (3); Wolf (2); Speedway (2) and one each from Miller Falls, Selecta and Winfield (Woolworths own brand). Two only were two-speed drills and none had a hammer option. Nearly 13 years later, the February 1976 Handyman Which? carried a report on 14 drills, all double-insulated, all but three two-speed. Makers: Black & Decker (6); Stanley-Bridges (4); and one each from Bosch, Makita, Metabo and Wolf. For domestic scale construction mains drills are now rarely seen; cordless drills sourced from the far east dominate the market.

In 1957 Harold Macmillan told UK voters that they’d “never had it so good”. British industry was thriving. During the 1960s manufacturing accounted for 27% of London’s economic output; (it’s now just 1.8%). The big three’s drills were all made in London: Black & Decker UK had moved to Harmondsworth (near Heathrow) in 1940, Wolf to Pioneer Works in Hanger Lane in 1935, and S.N.Bridges to York Road, Battersea, SW11 in 1959.

From here I’ll focus on Bridges. For more on Wolf and Black & Decker check out these links on Ultimate Handyman and Progress is Fine blog. 

S.N.Bridges & Co. was founded in 1937. By the time they moved to Battersea they had 600 employees. Alongside power tools, in the early 1960s they also made domestic appliances: food mixers, hairdryers, electric blankets, heaters etc.

An October 1959 ad reminds us of office work in pre-computer days: “S. N. Bridges & Co. Ltd., manufacturers of the world-famous range of Portable Electric Tools, have now moved into their new spacious premises at York Road, London, S.W.11 Vacancies on the permanent staff can now be filled for the following: Senior Secretaries; Senior and Junior Shorthand-Typists; Dictaphone Typists; Comptometer Operators; Sales Ledger Clerks; Export Shipping Clerks; Cost Analysis Clerks; Invoice Clerks. Only ladies of proved ability and experience, who are desirous of obtaining permanent worthwhile employment, should apply. Applications in writing, with copy references, stating fully qualifications, age, experience and salary, should be addressed to the Company Secretary….

In 1961 Bridges was acquired by Stanley, the long-established hand tool manufacturer, the power tools now being branded as Stanley-Bridges.

In 1963 the company needed “Temporary Female Assembly Operators. Normal hours of employment, 42-hour week. Company offers attractive rates of pay together with excellent conditions of employment”.

A 1966 advert was looking for capstan setter operators, milling setter operators, machine minders and other workers for the night shift, four nights 9.30p.m.-8.00a.m. followed by a long weekend, 8.00a.m. Friday to 9.30p.m. Monday.

In 1968 there were still no laws against age or sex discrimination: “Managing Director’s Secretary: A secretary is required for our Managing Director. She should possess an efficient and pleasing personality, be a competent shorthand-typist, and should be able to operate at senior executive level for extended periods without close supervision. Age from 23 years.

But for Bridges employees there was more to life than work. The South Western Star, 5 February 1960 recorded*:

The sports and social club of S. N. Bridges & Co. of Battersea entertained 196 children of members to a tea and entertainment in the works restaurant on Saturday. After tea the youngsters were entertained with magic and a Punch and Judy show by Clown Will Kindred, assisted by Mrs. D. Fisher, a member of the club. … Another member filled the role of Father Christmas and each child received a present, fruit and chocolates. Visitors included Mr. D. G. Bridges and Mr. S. R. Kilner, directors of S. N. Bridges …”.

The South Western Star, 9 December 1960, reported* on the firm’s dinner dance held at the company’s sports and social club at Kensington. 300 staff members and wives from round the UK were invited for an expenses paid weekend with the 80 out-of-town visitors being given a Saturday morning factory tour. Mr. G. N. Bridges, managing Director and Mr. D. G. Bridges, Financial Director, hosting.

Was London getting too expensive or staff too hard to find? A decade after moving to Battersea, another move was afoot. The Newcastle Journal – Wednesday 17 June 1970 reported*

Why Stanley-Bridges picked Cramlington

The world’s leading manufacturer of hand tools is running down London plant and settling up on the Nelson Industrial Estate at Cramlington. “We are doing this to meet our future expansion programme,” said Mr. Derek Mills, managing director of Stanley-Bridges, product of a merger in 1961 between United States-based Stanley and the London family firm of S. N. Bridges and Co. Stanley-Bridges has other plants in Sheffield but it is closing down in Battersea and settling In the North-East principally because the labour pool Is greater than in the South.

Wills, in Cramlington yesterday, said other facts that influenced the move were the North East’s excellent schools. living accommodation and communications and the persuasive powers of Northumberland County Council and the Board of Trade. By August upwards of 300 people, two-thirds of them men and almost all locally recruited, will have the plant In full production on hand and power operated tools for industrial and domestic markets. Main production area of the £500,000 plant is a 72,000 sq. ft. unit.”

After another ten or so years, Stanley-Bridges was no more. Several forum posts suggest that they were taken over by Bosch and then closed down. Anyone know more? Please respond in the comments. And does anyone know anything about Mr. S.N.Bridges? For someone who set up a company that employed nearly a thousand people at its peak and traded for sixty or so years, he’s apparently left no virtual footprint. Or perhaps I’ve yet to find it?


* Links to British Newspaper Archive ($$$)

1965 power drill advert
1965 power drill advert
Stanley-Bridges DR2T drill advert
Stanley-Bridges DR2T drill advert (TalkTenPin)
Stanley-Bridges XL330 drill (Handyman Which?)
Stanley-Bridges XL330 drill (Handyman Which?)
Stanley-Bridges XJ422 drill (Handyman Which?)
Stanley-Bridges XJ422 drill (Handyman Which?)

The road that never was

A rough guess as to the new road route
A rough guess as to the new road route

Back between the wars a new arterial road was planned running from Chessington to Sutton. It was never built but the route was still being safeguarded when I joined RBK in 1974. We had a map of it in the RBK planning office. While I was working there (c.1976?) the safeguarding was lifted but legacies of this plan remain.

The road (see the Sabre roads website Lost Arterial A24 for more detail) entered New Malden just south of the A3 then would have run along what are now Sheephouse Way and the end of South Lane – now you know why they have such generous grass verges. It would then have run across Malden Park and the railway. The line on the map above (from freemap.org) gives a rough idea of the intended route.

Look at the map and you’ll see a green swathe between Pembury Avenue and Risborough Drive. This was left undeveloped in the when Wates developed this area as the Worcester Park Station Estate in the 1930s and is now called Risborough Green. Rumour has it that its elevated ground level is down to the site being used as a dump for WW2 bomb site rubble.

The site between 133 Pembury Avenue and 200 Kingshill Avenue was also set aside for the new road – it’s now been infilled with a block of flats, Primrose Court. The houses on the other side of the road are much newer too.

Hopefully someone reading this knows a lot more about this road than I do. If so, please add a comment.

Sheephouse Way, New Malden - note the verge width
Sheephouse Way, New Malden – note the verge width
Risborough Green, Worcester Park
Risborough Green, Worcester Park
Primrose Court
Kingshill Avenue, Worcester Park
Kingshill Avenue, Worcester Park
Green Lane footpath - this might have been an arterial road
Green Lane footpath – this might have been an arterial road

Wates chalet spotting

Homes with “an exterior of outstanding loveliness”*.

Last month I wrote about Wates-built houses in New Malden, mainly in the area south of the A3 Kingston Bypass. Drive around the side streets and you can’t help noticing all the chalets, most built by Wates. At a quick glance you might think them all the same but not so.

The first chalets in Malden date from c.1932 – they are semi-detached and the roof slopes rise to a common ridge. Pictures (A) and (B) show two variants: I’m fairly sure that (A) with the front facing entrance door is the earlier and (B) with the side facing entrance door and Dutch gable (the small vertical tile-hung triangle at ridge level), later.

What came next – the semi-detached SC chalets or the more common link-detached variant? Once again we really need the RBK archive to tell us. My hunch is that the link-detached came first. Why? The 1935 Wilverley Park brochure offers buyers both options, promoting the semi-detached chalet as ‘New’:

C4 detached 3-bed chalet: “This wonderful Wates Chalet retains the sweeping roof lines which are so charming a feature of Wates original Chalets. Fully Detached with all its accompanying advantages of peace and privacy – a complete absence of ‘neighbour noise’ – the grand feeling that you really ARE in a house of your own – these are considerations which affect your personal comfort as a discerning Homeseeker.
Come and see for yourself the charm of these new wonder Chalets with their wide bays extending right to the eaves, mellow faced brickwork and smooth rendered walls blending into a delightful harmony – the new Wates Detached Chalet representing a standard of unrivalled value in planning, equipment and beauty.

SC3 Semi-detached Chalet: … For many years now Wates have been famed for their Chalets …. The New Semi-detached Chalet retains all the beauty of design, the bold sweeping roof lines and pleasing elevation which characterises every Wates-Built Chalet. With its newly revised arrangement of rooms it has won the approval of all purchasers. Come and see the improved planning, generous equipment and delightful appearance of these new semi-detached Chalets.

Urban legend had it that the link-detached option gave the advantages claimed above whilst allowing the house to be rated as semi-detached since it was (if only by the brick arch) connected to another house. True? I don’t know.

3-bed link-detached (C) and semi-detached chalets are by far the most common variant but there are others too. Two-bedroom chalets (D) – recognisable by the entrance door being towards the front of the flank wall – were created by deleting the front ground floor third bedroom. 4-bedroom chalets (E) are identifiable by a two-storey section at the rear; most also have a ground floor WC. Lastly, and very rare, are the detached chalets with integral garage (F) – this variation doesn’t work for me – and the corner chalets (G) which do.

Some chalets have a round porthole window lighting the first floor box room, others don’t. Some have a flat front-facing window to the ground floor third bedroom, others have an oriel window. Were these extra cost options?

Buyers were offered the option of buying freehold (FH) or leasehold (LH), the latter making housing more affordable. Here’s a summary (all 3-bed):

Detached chalet: FH £929, LH £749, weekly outgoings £1:12:9d/£1:10:11d, TFA ~95m2, lounge 14’3”x13’0” (4.34×3.96m)
Semi-detached chalet: FH £819, LH £639, weekly outgoings £1:8:11d/£1:7:1d, TFA ~95m2, lounge 14’3”x13’0” (4.34×3.96m)

And for comparison, traditional Wates ‘Tudor’ semis:

TDL Tudor Deluxe: FH: £729, LH: £579, weekly outgoings £1:5:9d/£1:4:3d, TFA ~98m2, lounge 14’3”x12’3” (4.34×3.73m)
TDL Tudor Major: FH: £649, LH: £499, weekly outgoings £1:2:11d/£1:1:6d, TFA ~79m2, lounge 13’1”x10’9” (3.99×3.28m)

Thus it can be seen that 1930s buyers paid a premium for chalets, justified by the space and architecture.

Ground rent, included in the LH weekly outgoings, was £9 a year for chalets, £7.10 for Tudor SDs, equating to a 5% return to Wates. I wonder how many people took the leasehold option, given that the saving was less than two shillings a week. Perhaps the reduced deposit was the key attraction. There was also an option to rent: in the 1930s many working class people had an aversion to going into debt even though we now see mortgage debt as ‘good’ debt.

Dormer additions: As built, chalets have a large under-roof box room next to the front bedroom. It’s relatively simple to build this out as an extra bedroom and many owners have done this (H). During my BCO days (1976-84) two local builders, Malcolm Carter and Tony Forte, did little else. Malcolm’s reputation was such that he ran an eighteen month waiting list. You didn’t decide whether to appoint him or not; he decided whether or not he wanted you as a customer. Another common alteration was adding a ground floor WC under the stairs: the space is tight but it can be done.

Other comments: Given Malden’s shrinkable clay subsoil, subsidence problems requiring underpinning were not unknown across my patch. Wates built houses were almost immune to such problems – the filed plans showed them as being built on Twisteel reinforced concrete rafts.

The plan above (for a chalet in Streatham, so may not reflect what was done in Malden) is interesting in that it shows cavity walls on three sides and a one-brick solid wall for the wall facing the mirrored chalet. When I was in primary school we were taught that cavity walls were introduced to improve insulation. They do, but the real reason was to eliminate the problem of driving rain finding its way through the wall. The facing walls are not, obviously, subject to driving rain.

1930s Wates houses also show the durability of concrete roof tiles: they were only introduced in the late 1920s so when these houses were built they were a new and untried innovation. Most roofs are original and still in excellent condition.

Click on an image to enlarge it; click again or press [Esc] to return. Please excuse the quality of the pics: I only had one day free when last in the UK and it was a wet, grey one.

* Weekly Dispatch (London) – Sunday 21 January 1934

Wates: The brothers who changed New Malden

In my September 2022 piece I noted the dominance of  developer Wates in shaping modern New Malden, especially south of the A3. This month I’m writing about the firm; next month I’ll concentrate on their archetypal chalets with their “exterior of outstanding loveliness”*.

The Wates business began around 1900 when Edward Wates (1873-1944) set up a furniture store in Streatham, South London, his brother Arthur joining him in 1902. The store, E & A Wates, sold furniture and furnishings and handled removals. It closed in May 2021 and the buildings are now being converted into flats under the name Wates Yard. Younger brothers William and Herbert, who were builders, joined the firm in 1904 and persuaded their older brothers to invest in some land in Purley to speculatively build two new houses. Wates was in the housebuilding business and by 1914 they’d built 139 houses.

During the 1920s Edward’s three sons, Norman (1905-69), Ronald (1907-86) and Allan (1909-85) joined the firm, progressively taking over from the first generation. Norman was the dominant figure: in 1926 under his leadership it embarked on ‘what was then an enormous speculation’, an estate of 1,000 houses in Streatham Vale, which took five years to complete. Ronald trained as a surveyor and took responsibility for site acquisition, later pursuing a second career as a borough and LCC councillor, for which in 1975 he was knighted. Allan joined the firm in 1930; from 1936 he was responsible for the contracting side of the business. All three brothers took an active role in community and philanthropic activities, something which younger members of the family have continued: since it was formed the Wates Foundation has made grants totalling over £100 million, which have provided vital support to thousands of charities.

The period up to WW2 saw enormous expansion, though activities were largely confined to a relatively small geographic area to the south of London from Twickenham in the west to Sidcup in the east. By doing this Wates could maintain a permanent workforce rather than using casual labour. By WW2 Wates  had completed 30,000 houses, 1500-2000 a year.

During the 1930s Wates built more homes in Malden than any other developer. From memory the first houses built by Wates in Malden were some  terraced houses on the south side of Kingston Road – built around 1930 IIRC. After this Wates moved on to build many of the houses in Cromwell Avenue estate. Kenneth Bland (1909-83) joined Wates as chief architect in 1933 and would be there until 1970s – he may be responsible for the Dutch gables found on later Wates houses (they’re not exclusive to Wates of course). Estate layouts, road and utility service design and the like were generally handled by Chart, Son & Reading, a Croydon firm of architects and surveyors.

With the opening of the Kingston Bypass (A3) on 28 October 1927 the land to its south was fair game for development and between 1928-34 Wates bought up multiple parcels of land. During the 1930s they were building houses by the hundred – Wilverley Park, Motspur Park, Barnfield and Wendover estates, the Worcester Park Station estate and several infill developments such as Burford Road.

From 1936 speculative house building in Greater London started to wind down. Most easy-to-develop land had been developed and the flow of new buyers had probably slowed down. The last Wates houses built in Malden before WW2 were for the most part larger detached houses pitched at a slightly different demographic.

As with other pieces in this occasional series, some of the information given here is drawn from memories of my time (1976-84) working at R.B.Kingston upon Thames Building Control and may be incorrect. If you can add anything or see any errors in what I’ve written please add a comment. Unfortunately the British Newspaper Archive has yet to digitise copies of the Surrey Comet for the period covered by these pieces.

* Weekly Dispatch (London) – Sunday 21 January 1934


The title I’ve given this page is a bit tongue in cheek. Wates were responsible for most of the interwar housing between the A3 and the Chessington railway line but a number of other builders were active in the Malden & Coombe BC area including

  • E&L Berg: Notable for their halls-adjoining semis in the High Drive area and their Berg Sunspan houses in Woodlands Avenue.
  • Crouch Group: Builders of many semis in the Kenley Road area.
  • Gleeson: Built lots of houses between the large Wates developments and the Hogsmill river. Their attempt to copy Wates chalets doesn’t IMO come off.
  • R.Lancaster (Wembley): Kingston Vale estate, SW15 (Bowness & Ullswater Crescents, Derwent, Grasmere and Keswick Avenues, Windermere Road). Large houses for better off buyers.
  • Lavender and Farrell: Developed the Worcester Park end of M&C: Manor Drive, Highdown and Leyfield. For a detailed history see Worcester Park Life, Dec 2012, Local History article.
  • New Ideal Homesteads: Set up in 1929 and grew to be the largest homebuilder in the 1930s. Undertook development to the north of Clarence Avenue
  • For more information see ‘Dictionary of British Housebuilders‘, Fred Wellings, 2015