BRITISH FURNITURE
1820 to 1920: The Luxury Market
Christopher Payne
Contents
Furniture is as much a part of our life as are the trees around us which took many years to grow. It is easy to use furniture on a day-to-day basis without a thought to the quiet peace of the forests of the globe that supplied the timber, cut by long hours of toil, shipped by sail and steam and made by hand or machine by skilled artisans in workshops throughout the land.
Foreword
7
Acknowledgements
11
Introduction
15
Chapter 1: 1820s
18
Chapter 2: 1830s
64
Chapter 3: 1840s
118
Chapter 4: 1850s
170
Chapter 5: 1860s
224
Chapter 6: 1870s
284
Chapter 7: 1880s
340
Chapter 8: 1890s
390
Chapter 9: 1900–1909
442
Chapter 10: 1910–1920
486
Endnotes
540
Bibliography
556
Index
566
Contents
Furniture is as much a part of our life as are the trees around us which took many years to grow. It is easy to use furniture on a day-to-day basis without a thought to the quiet peace of the forests of the globe that supplied the timber, cut by long hours of toil, shipped by sail and steam and made by hand or machine by skilled artisans in workshops throughout the land.
Foreword
7
Acknowledgements
11
Introduction
15
Chapter 1: 1820s
18
Chapter 2: 1830s
64
Chapter 3: 1840s
118
Chapter 4: 1850s
170
Chapter 5: 1860s
224
Chapter 6: 1870s
284
Chapter 7: 1880s
340
Chapter 8: 1890s
390
Chapter 9: 1900–1909
442
Chapter 10: 1910–1920
486
Endnotes
540
Bibliography
556
Index
566
Foreword
It was a great delight to me when Christopher Payne asked me to write a foreword for this remarkable publication. I had known of Christopher and his work for a long time before we met at the first international conference on marquetry in Vadstana, Sweden in 2007. As a researcher and author of many aspects of furniture history, I have used his various publications over the years. I was also fascinated by his depth and breadth of knowledge that was displayed in his appearances and long association with the BBC’s Antiques Roadshow. Over the subsequent years we have been “talking furniture” and discussing a whole range of aspects of this mutual interest, including academic and practical matters. We also both have a particular interest in the materials and techniques associated with furniture production. One particularly memorable moment was when Christopher showed me the results of his own Windsor chair making! While there have been many survey books on numerous aspects of ‘Victorian’ furniture, as well as books and articles on specific businesses, designers and makers, this volume is important as it offers a new perspective and an overview of British luxury furniture across the period 1820–1920. To some degree it complements Christopher’s work on the Paris luxury furniture trades of the nineteenth century. The importance of the great international fairs, the continuation
A detail of the border of the circular centre table designed for Morel & Seddon by the fifteen-year-old A.W.N. Pugin in 1827. Delivered to Windsor Castle the following year,
6
the stylised oak leaf and acorn marquetry in contrasting colours set within pollard oak crossbandings are an indication of Pugin’s precocious genius.
7
of skilled craftmanship, the role of eminent designers, the growth of specialist businesses, and the range of items purchased and collected by aristocrats and newly wealthy entrepreneurs are all reflected in the operations of the luxury market that is analysed here. The concept of luxury that is explored in the book underlines how beneath the processes of consumption of luxury and semi-luxury furniture is found an industry of commercial enterprises (furniture makers) who link design, skilled labour, fine materials and the expensive application of time to produce furniture of outstanding quality. The book illustrates how methods of production and marketing were often shared between luxury and semi-luxury goods, using the same patterns and catalogues, the same tools and techniques, and in many cases similar materials, thus demonstrating degrees of adaptability and the exploitation of complex networks of manufacture. In this regard, many of the makers will be familiar to furniture collectors and historians, however, once important but now lesser-known manufacturing and retailing businesses, are also discussed and brought to the fore. The value in considering the period 1820–1920 through decades, rather than by grouping into stylistic periods such as Gothic revival, Renaissance revival, Art and Crafts, is that a sequence can be traced to show how styles grew, matured, overlapped and changed or were reused over long periods of time. Indeed, the importance of the revival styles and copies, a fundamental part of the furniture trade that has often previously been neglected, is here given the treatment it deserves as a really important part of the business. From the early decades that employed ‘old French’ styles to the
Foreword
It was a great delight to me when Christopher Payne asked me to write a foreword for this remarkable publication. I had known of Christopher and his work for a long time before we met at the first international conference on marquetry in Vadstana, Sweden in 2007. As a researcher and author of many aspects of furniture history, I have used his various publications over the years. I was also fascinated by his depth and breadth of knowledge that was displayed in his appearances and long association with the BBC’s Antiques Roadshow. Over the subsequent years we have been “talking furniture” and discussing a whole range of aspects of this mutual interest, including academic and practical matters. We also both have a particular interest in the materials and techniques associated with furniture production. One particularly memorable moment was when Christopher showed me the results of his own Windsor chair making! While there have been many survey books on numerous aspects of ‘Victorian’ furniture, as well as books and articles on specific businesses, designers and makers, this volume is important as it offers a new perspective and an overview of British luxury furniture across the period 1820–1920. To some degree it complements Christopher’s work on the Paris luxury furniture trades of the nineteenth century. The importance of the great international fairs, the continuation
A detail of the border of the circular centre table designed for Morel & Seddon by the fifteen-year-old A.W.N. Pugin in 1827. Delivered to Windsor Castle the following year,
6
the stylised oak leaf and acorn marquetry in contrasting colours set within pollard oak crossbandings are an indication of Pugin’s precocious genius.
7
of skilled craftmanship, the role of eminent designers, the growth of specialist businesses, and the range of items purchased and collected by aristocrats and newly wealthy entrepreneurs are all reflected in the operations of the luxury market that is analysed here. The concept of luxury that is explored in the book underlines how beneath the processes of consumption of luxury and semi-luxury furniture is found an industry of commercial enterprises (furniture makers) who link design, skilled labour, fine materials and the expensive application of time to produce furniture of outstanding quality. The book illustrates how methods of production and marketing were often shared between luxury and semi-luxury goods, using the same patterns and catalogues, the same tools and techniques, and in many cases similar materials, thus demonstrating degrees of adaptability and the exploitation of complex networks of manufacture. In this regard, many of the makers will be familiar to furniture collectors and historians, however, once important but now lesser-known manufacturing and retailing businesses, are also discussed and brought to the fore. The value in considering the period 1820–1920 through decades, rather than by grouping into stylistic periods such as Gothic revival, Renaissance revival, Art and Crafts, is that a sequence can be traced to show how styles grew, matured, overlapped and changed or were reused over long periods of time. Indeed, the importance of the revival styles and copies, a fundamental part of the furniture trade that has often previously been neglected, is here given the treatment it deserves as a really important part of the business. From the early decades that employed ‘old French’ styles to the
Introduction
Prior to this publication there have been few books available covering British furniture of the period 1820 to 1920 and it is hoped that this work goes some way to filling the gap for those interested in this fascinating century of innovation and luxury. It is intended to be an illustrated compendium of British furniture spanning the century. The book does not purport to be an encyclopaedic reference of the one hundred years but a rich visual source, highlighting the multitude of different styles that were fashionable over the period; furniture made by a huge variety of skilled craftsmen. These styles often overlapped, running concurrently side by side, sometimes for decades. No single volume can hope to encapsulate the enormous productivity of the British cabinet maker over the century, a hundred years which witnessed so much technological innovation and economic growth. Over the period, Britain established an empire, and the industry of the Victorian era became a model and influence across the globe. In furniture, the period witnessed both technical and artistic innovation but at the same time relied heavily on past influences, reflecting the glory of the previous centuries and celebrating Britain and its historical past. This book is set out by decade, each chapter spanning ten years of design and manufacture with the intention of giving
A version of the ‘Monocleid’ cabinet by Thomas Sopwith. Sopwith originally designed the cabinet to be opened with one single key, hence the name, in the 1830s. Underlining the difficulty of assigning furniture design to a specific decade, this version in mahogany probably dates to the mid-1840s and a variation was
14
exhibited at the Great Exhibition in 1851. Here the cabinet is shown open, the pigeonholes annotated for filing, one marked ‘Nether Grange’, another ‘North Eastern R***’, suggesting that this example was in use not far from where it was made in Newcastle (see Fig. 3.90a). [Casa-Museu Medeiros e Almeida]
15
each section a visual coherence. Designers and makers, however, do not conveniently separate their work into decades to aid the work of historians. Many designs so often considered ‘Victorian’ were concepts formulated during the Regency between 1810 and 1820. One particular group of furniture that defies accurate dating within a decade is that produced by the Blake family of marquetry cutters along with furniture supplied and sometimes made by the ubiquitous E.H. Baldock, and I have illustrated their work in various chapters. Few of these pieces are dated and could be interchangeable within several chapters. Such examples are numerous. Thomas Sopwith’s ‘Monocleid’ cabinet (shown opposite) arguably Chippendale in inspiration, was designed in the mid-1830s and exhibited over twenty years later at the Great Exhibition in 1851. At the other end of the century, the carver Gerrard Robinson, who had also exhibited at the Crystal Palace, was making furniture in a similar vein in the 1890s. Towards the end of the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, the growing influence of the George II and George III periods of Chippendale, Hepplewhite and Sheraton becomes increasingly difficult to separate into convenient ten-year chapters and, without archival evidence, dating of these pieces becomes subjective; it is likely that much of this reproduction furniture is far later in date than generally assumed. Over the fifty years of my career, I have been constantly reminded of the quality of furniture made in Britain during the period of this book, and it is a celebration of my personal interest in not only the prevailing fashions of the period but also in the technical ability of the crafts people involved in the often-complex production. I have tried to identify as many of the main makers as possible and used lavish images to give some indication as to the quality of their work.
Introduction
Prior to this publication there have been few books available covering British furniture of the period 1820 to 1920 and it is hoped that this work goes some way to filling the gap for those interested in this fascinating century of innovation and luxury. It is intended to be an illustrated compendium of British furniture spanning the century. The book does not purport to be an encyclopaedic reference of the one hundred years but a rich visual source, highlighting the multitude of different styles that were fashionable over the period; furniture made by a huge variety of skilled craftsmen. These styles often overlapped, running concurrently side by side, sometimes for decades. No single volume can hope to encapsulate the enormous productivity of the British cabinet maker over the century, a hundred years which witnessed so much technological innovation and economic growth. Over the period, Britain established an empire, and the industry of the Victorian era became a model and influence across the globe. In furniture, the period witnessed both technical and artistic innovation but at the same time relied heavily on past influences, reflecting the glory of the previous centuries and celebrating Britain and its historical past. This book is set out by decade, each chapter spanning ten years of design and manufacture with the intention of giving
A version of the ‘Monocleid’ cabinet by Thomas Sopwith. Sopwith originally designed the cabinet to be opened with one single key, hence the name, in the 1830s. Underlining the difficulty of assigning furniture design to a specific decade, this version in mahogany probably dates to the mid-1840s and a variation was
14
exhibited at the Great Exhibition in 1851. Here the cabinet is shown open, the pigeonholes annotated for filing, one marked ‘Nether Grange’, another ‘North Eastern R***’, suggesting that this example was in use not far from where it was made in Newcastle (see Fig. 3.90a). [Casa-Museu Medeiros e Almeida]
15
each section a visual coherence. Designers and makers, however, do not conveniently separate their work into decades to aid the work of historians. Many designs so often considered ‘Victorian’ were concepts formulated during the Regency between 1810 and 1820. One particular group of furniture that defies accurate dating within a decade is that produced by the Blake family of marquetry cutters along with furniture supplied and sometimes made by the ubiquitous E.H. Baldock, and I have illustrated their work in various chapters. Few of these pieces are dated and could be interchangeable within several chapters. Such examples are numerous. Thomas Sopwith’s ‘Monocleid’ cabinet (shown opposite) arguably Chippendale in inspiration, was designed in the mid-1830s and exhibited over twenty years later at the Great Exhibition in 1851. At the other end of the century, the carver Gerrard Robinson, who had also exhibited at the Crystal Palace, was making furniture in a similar vein in the 1890s. Towards the end of the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, the growing influence of the George II and George III periods of Chippendale, Hepplewhite and Sheraton becomes increasingly difficult to separate into convenient ten-year chapters and, without archival evidence, dating of these pieces becomes subjective; it is likely that much of this reproduction furniture is far later in date than generally assumed. Over the fifty years of my career, I have been constantly reminded of the quality of furniture made in Britain during the period of this book, and it is a celebration of my personal interest in not only the prevailing fashions of the period but also in the technical ability of the crafts people involved in the often-complex production. I have tried to identify as many of the main makers as possible and used lavish images to give some indication as to the quality of their work.
chapter 6
br it ish fur nit ur e
1870s ‘Our millionaires are maniacs for collecting things.’ 1
Publications throughout the nineteenth century allow contemporary insights into furniture and decoration, of which The Furniture Gazette, first published in 1872, is a prime example.2 Each issue offered a wealth of interesting information to the furniture historian and collector. It was the first journal dedicated to furniture and the associated trades and is a rich seam of informative detail. Other publications included The Cabinetmaker & Art Furnisher (1880), The Building News, The House-Furnisher and Decorator (1871) and The Art-Workman (1873). Although the weekly reports and advertisements are somewhat repetitive, The Furniture Gazette is full of interesting snippets; recently digitalised they are easily searched.3 Larger mainstream firms, such as Jackson & Graham (amongst others) are mentioned, but it was mainly the smaller firms who advertised in what was essentially a trade magazine. Comments were on both a practical and informative basis. On a practical level, such reports can give us an understanding of specific marketing techniques of the furniture trade. The weekly reports also served to educate, frequently discussing previous styles of furniture and decoration. Although it seems surprising to our modern views of marketing, the more established firms such
Fig. 6.1 (opposite) The Pompeian Room at Ickworth House completed in 1879 by F.C. Penrose and J.D. Crace would have been the ideal location for the suite of library furniture exhibited by Howard & Sons in 1862, Fig 5.7.4 [Country Life, 1993]
284
285
as Gillows, Morant and Dowbiggin did not deign to have a window display. Competition from new large stores, such as that of James Shoolbred, forced makers to change this strategy, and it was reported that Jackson & Graham would ‘place one choice item in their window’.5 Comprehensive furniture catalogues were produced by retailers; one by James Shoolbred in 1874 shows the wide variety of goods available at the time. Following a relatively new trend, Shoolbreds was a complete house furnisher, down to bedding, pots and pans. Advertising over four hundred pieces of furniture, their 1874 catalogue contained numerous line engravings of complete rooms, ranging from the Medieval Revival style through Louis XVI Neoclassicism to Japonisme. A popular model was the small oak bench in the Aesthetic manner with a brass chrysanthemum flowerhead in the form of a Japanese mon applied at either side, Fig. 6.5, some stamped with the ‘Kite’ registration mark from the British Patent Office from which the year of the patent can be read. A range of hall stands and seat furniture in the Japonisme and ‘Art Botanical’ taste espoused by Christopher Dresser appeared in the 1875 and 1876 Shoolbred catalogues. As well as the more utilitarian, the firm provided furniture made to the highest standards. A prime example was a stunning upright piano designed by H.W. Batley, housing a Collard & Collard movement, the first example exhibited in Paris in 1878, Fig. 6.6. The satinwood case is in the Aesthetic style of ‘Art Furniture’, luxuriously carved with Chinese-style fretwork and sunflowers in solid boxwood.
chapter 6
br it ish fur nit ur e
1870s ‘Our millionaires are maniacs for collecting things.’ 1
Publications throughout the nineteenth century allow contemporary insights into furniture and decoration, of which The Furniture Gazette, first published in 1872, is a prime example.2 Each issue offered a wealth of interesting information to the furniture historian and collector. It was the first journal dedicated to furniture and the associated trades and is a rich seam of informative detail. Other publications included The Cabinetmaker & Art Furnisher (1880), The Building News, The House-Furnisher and Decorator (1871) and The Art-Workman (1873). Although the weekly reports and advertisements are somewhat repetitive, The Furniture Gazette is full of interesting snippets; recently digitalised they are easily searched.3 Larger mainstream firms, such as Jackson & Graham (amongst others) are mentioned, but it was mainly the smaller firms who advertised in what was essentially a trade magazine. Comments were on both a practical and informative basis. On a practical level, such reports can give us an understanding of specific marketing techniques of the furniture trade. The weekly reports also served to educate, frequently discussing previous styles of furniture and decoration. Although it seems surprising to our modern views of marketing, the more established firms such
Fig. 6.1 (opposite) The Pompeian Room at Ickworth House completed in 1879 by F.C. Penrose and J.D. Crace would have been the ideal location for the suite of library furniture exhibited by Howard & Sons in 1862, Fig 5.7.4 [Country Life, 1993]
284
285
as Gillows, Morant and Dowbiggin did not deign to have a window display. Competition from new large stores, such as that of James Shoolbred, forced makers to change this strategy, and it was reported that Jackson & Graham would ‘place one choice item in their window’.5 Comprehensive furniture catalogues were produced by retailers; one by James Shoolbred in 1874 shows the wide variety of goods available at the time. Following a relatively new trend, Shoolbreds was a complete house furnisher, down to bedding, pots and pans. Advertising over four hundred pieces of furniture, their 1874 catalogue contained numerous line engravings of complete rooms, ranging from the Medieval Revival style through Louis XVI Neoclassicism to Japonisme. A popular model was the small oak bench in the Aesthetic manner with a brass chrysanthemum flowerhead in the form of a Japanese mon applied at either side, Fig. 6.5, some stamped with the ‘Kite’ registration mark from the British Patent Office from which the year of the patent can be read. A range of hall stands and seat furniture in the Japonisme and ‘Art Botanical’ taste espoused by Christopher Dresser appeared in the 1875 and 1876 Shoolbred catalogues. As well as the more utilitarian, the firm provided furniture made to the highest standards. A prime example was a stunning upright piano designed by H.W. Batley, housing a Collard & Collard movement, the first example exhibited in Paris in 1878, Fig. 6.6. The satinwood case is in the Aesthetic style of ‘Art Furniture’, luxuriously carved with Chinese-style fretwork and sunflowers in solid boxwood.
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 6 : 187 0 s
Fig. 6.7 A Dining Room by Gillows at the Prince of Wales’s Pavilion at the 1878 exhibition. Gillows also created a ‘Modern Jacobean’ hall for the exhibition and an elaborate boudoir in the Adam style for the Princess of Wales. [Look & Learn]
6.7
of Connaught and Strathearn, in the chair, a report noted: ‘It has long been acknowledged that if this country is efficiently to maintain its manufacturing supremacy in the markets of the world, the technical education of our artisans must be improved’.12 Training of personnel from the provinces was equally as important. Examples included John Manuel junior, who received training at the Sheffield Art School, one of whose examiners was no less than Edward Poynter R.A.,13 and Christopher Dresser, born in Glasgow to a Yorkshire family, who attended the Government School of Design at Somerset House at the age of thirteen. Information in contemporary trade journals for historians today is limited by the comparative rarity of signed or fully attributable examples of furniture. Extensive lists of makers ranged from Wallace of Curtain Road in London to Payne & Co. of Cardiff, and from ‘The Golden Chair’ in Manchester to Symon of Aberdeen. The lists show the enormous number of firms involved in the furniture and associated trades, many of whom are unknown today, their furniture, if still in existence, unidentifiable. The furniture industry in London was slowly spreading to the east. In 1846 there were fiftynine furniture workshops recorded in the East End, eightynine by 1859.14 By the mid-1870s, The Furniture Gazette’s listing of cabinet makers was expanded to cover the whole of Britain, not just London.
The journal estimated that there were some 5 million houses to be furnished in Britain. Few could afford furniture at the top end of the market but there was an inevitable growth of demand at home as well as abroad. In 1890 it was estimated that 57,000 people were employed as cabinet makers, including approximately 9,000 women, with a further 7,500 employed as carvers and gilders and 7,000 French polishers. There were over 12,000 furniture workers in London, more than 1,800 in the Birmingham area, 795 in Manchester, 610 in Leeds, 454 in Bradford and 454 in West Derby. By this time increasing trade union activity was also beginning to benefit the conditions of the working population.15 As demand for furniture boomed in the 1870s, the Leeds firm of Jones & Cribb, advertising in the first of the new series of The Furniture Gazette as ‘late Kendall & Co.’, promised ‘constant employment and good wages for good workmen’. Underlying the rapid growth of provincial firms, in the same issue the little-known ‘Punch Brothers of Middlesbrough [sic]’ were looking for ‘twenty good cabinet-makers…five polishers and four good deal hands’.16 Shortages of manpower were reported in May 1873 with an increasing demand for cabinet makers in London. In June 1877, the journal published comparative wages of the cabinet trade in seventy-five English towns. The average hours
288
6.8
6.9
Fig. 6.8 Robinson & Son of Rochdale, initially timber merchants and joiners, started making machinery in 1848. This advertisement for an ‘endless band sawing machine’ for cutting shapes is from their 1873 catalogue after they had exhibited at the Vienna Exhibition. [Robinson catalogue]
Fig. 6.9 Established prior to 1845, the Birmingham firm of Udal & Sons produced a familiar array of medieval and Gothic-style brass fittings for furniture, as can be seen in this advertisement. [The Furniture Gazette, 12 July 1879]
worked per week were fifty-five. Lancaster workers earned 30s a week, Londoners up to £2, whilst Taunton wages were 22–26s per week and York 26–28s. A week later a report on the state of many workshops made depressing reading. Titled ‘Cheerless Workshops’ the reporter wrote that ‘many of them are dark, crowded, dreary places...workshops that were dark and damp’.17 Workshop conditions appear to be at odds with the extraordinary high quality of the work that we see and treasure today. A report on Foster & Cooper shows that many firms were buying in wholesale furniture, whilst pointing out that they also made items in-house. With two warehouses in the city and a sawmill, the Nottingham firm was clearly an important manufacturer and employer. Their new premises used machinery made by Robinsons of Rochdale for sawing timber, as well as Armstrong’s patent machine for making dovetails and a 135-foot-long (41 metres) machining room for planing.18 The band saw
289
was an essential machine for any workshop and Robinsons constantly improved their design to try to stop blades breaking. Advertising in The Furniture Gazette often brought about a visit from the journal’s reporters, usually to good effect. Peter Lironi, a frequent advertiser based in Worship Street near Finsbury Square, known for mirror frames, was described in August 1877 as an important wholesale cabinet maker to the trade. The Furniture Gazette is full of references to a plethora of makers about whom we know basic facts such as work addresses but without evidence of exactly what they made.19 A reporter visiting William Waines of Newington Butts, who had started modestly in 1848 and whose premises had grown to a two-acre site, wrote, ‘There are also workshops in which every process of furniture is going on; in one, cabinet and chair makers are busily plying their tools; in others, inlayers and artists are employed in the decorative portions; polishers, couch and chair stuffers
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 6 : 187 0 s
Fig. 6.7 A Dining Room by Gillows at the Prince of Wales’s Pavilion at the 1878 exhibition. Gillows also created a ‘Modern Jacobean’ hall for the exhibition and an elaborate boudoir in the Adam style for the Princess of Wales. [Look & Learn]
6.7
of Connaught and Strathearn, in the chair, a report noted: ‘It has long been acknowledged that if this country is efficiently to maintain its manufacturing supremacy in the markets of the world, the technical education of our artisans must be improved’.12 Training of personnel from the provinces was equally as important. Examples included John Manuel junior, who received training at the Sheffield Art School, one of whose examiners was no less than Edward Poynter R.A.,13 and Christopher Dresser, born in Glasgow to a Yorkshire family, who attended the Government School of Design at Somerset House at the age of thirteen. Information in contemporary trade journals for historians today is limited by the comparative rarity of signed or fully attributable examples of furniture. Extensive lists of makers ranged from Wallace of Curtain Road in London to Payne & Co. of Cardiff, and from ‘The Golden Chair’ in Manchester to Symon of Aberdeen. The lists show the enormous number of firms involved in the furniture and associated trades, many of whom are unknown today, their furniture, if still in existence, unidentifiable. The furniture industry in London was slowly spreading to the east. In 1846 there were fiftynine furniture workshops recorded in the East End, eightynine by 1859.14 By the mid-1870s, The Furniture Gazette’s listing of cabinet makers was expanded to cover the whole of Britain, not just London.
The journal estimated that there were some 5 million houses to be furnished in Britain. Few could afford furniture at the top end of the market but there was an inevitable growth of demand at home as well as abroad. In 1890 it was estimated that 57,000 people were employed as cabinet makers, including approximately 9,000 women, with a further 7,500 employed as carvers and gilders and 7,000 French polishers. There were over 12,000 furniture workers in London, more than 1,800 in the Birmingham area, 795 in Manchester, 610 in Leeds, 454 in Bradford and 454 in West Derby. By this time increasing trade union activity was also beginning to benefit the conditions of the working population.15 As demand for furniture boomed in the 1870s, the Leeds firm of Jones & Cribb, advertising in the first of the new series of The Furniture Gazette as ‘late Kendall & Co.’, promised ‘constant employment and good wages for good workmen’. Underlying the rapid growth of provincial firms, in the same issue the little-known ‘Punch Brothers of Middlesbrough [sic]’ were looking for ‘twenty good cabinet-makers…five polishers and four good deal hands’.16 Shortages of manpower were reported in May 1873 with an increasing demand for cabinet makers in London. In June 1877, the journal published comparative wages of the cabinet trade in seventy-five English towns. The average hours
288
6.8
6.9
Fig. 6.8 Robinson & Son of Rochdale, initially timber merchants and joiners, started making machinery in 1848. This advertisement for an ‘endless band sawing machine’ for cutting shapes is from their 1873 catalogue after they had exhibited at the Vienna Exhibition. [Robinson catalogue]
Fig. 6.9 Established prior to 1845, the Birmingham firm of Udal & Sons produced a familiar array of medieval and Gothic-style brass fittings for furniture, as can be seen in this advertisement. [The Furniture Gazette, 12 July 1879]
worked per week were fifty-five. Lancaster workers earned 30s a week, Londoners up to £2, whilst Taunton wages were 22–26s per week and York 26–28s. A week later a report on the state of many workshops made depressing reading. Titled ‘Cheerless Workshops’ the reporter wrote that ‘many of them are dark, crowded, dreary places...workshops that were dark and damp’.17 Workshop conditions appear to be at odds with the extraordinary high quality of the work that we see and treasure today. A report on Foster & Cooper shows that many firms were buying in wholesale furniture, whilst pointing out that they also made items in-house. With two warehouses in the city and a sawmill, the Nottingham firm was clearly an important manufacturer and employer. Their new premises used machinery made by Robinsons of Rochdale for sawing timber, as well as Armstrong’s patent machine for making dovetails and a 135-foot-long (41 metres) machining room for planing.18 The band saw
289
was an essential machine for any workshop and Robinsons constantly improved their design to try to stop blades breaking. Advertising in The Furniture Gazette often brought about a visit from the journal’s reporters, usually to good effect. Peter Lironi, a frequent advertiser based in Worship Street near Finsbury Square, known for mirror frames, was described in August 1877 as an important wholesale cabinet maker to the trade. The Furniture Gazette is full of references to a plethora of makers about whom we know basic facts such as work addresses but without evidence of exactly what they made.19 A reporter visiting William Waines of Newington Butts, who had started modestly in 1848 and whose premises had grown to a two-acre site, wrote, ‘There are also workshops in which every process of furniture is going on; in one, cabinet and chair makers are busily plying their tools; in others, inlayers and artists are employed in the decorative portions; polishers, couch and chair stuffers
br it ish fur nit ur e
6.76
c h a p t e r 6 : 187 0 s
6.78
6.79
6.77
devised it between them’.122 Some of the main proponents were Batley, Collcutt, Collinson & Lock, Godwin and Shaw. The Furniture Gazette credited Shaw as the leading light of modern Queen Anne, commenting that he was previously ‘a master in Gothic design’.123 The Furniture Gazette reproduced simple line drawings by Godwin ‘specially designed for this journal’,124 see Fig. 6.85a, and many of his designs were imitated by commercial makers. Between 1872 and 1874, Godwin had an arrangement with Collinson & Lock for them to use his designs; these were later commercialised, possibly without Godwin’s agreement. Godwin’s historic designs of furniture for Dromore Castle were made by Watt between 1867 and 1870. Although world renowned for his Aesthetic designs, Godwin designed ‘Old English’ and Jacobean-style furniture for The Furniture Gazette in 1876, Fig. 6.85b. A rare example of a press or ‘court’ cupboard by him is shown as Fig. 6.87. A relatively unknown Aesthetic designer was O.W. Davis, whose design for an extensive dining room suite was made by Shoolbred for the Lord Mayor of London. Despite numerous designs published in contemporary magazines, comparatively little Aesthetic furniture is recorded. One example is an Aesthetic-inspired library suite by Audas & Leggott, cabinet and art furniture makers of Hull. There were designs by R. Hunter, a maker in Eden Street, Hampstead; another designer was Charles Leggott, possibly connected with the Hull workshop and others by a ‘Mr A. Lackenby’.125 In the 1870s, Rottmann, Strome & Co. imported, with resounding success,
6.80 A group of designs of ‘Ancient Egyptian Furniture’ by John Moyr Smith. [The Building News, 5 November 1875]
Fig. 6.76 Il Dolce Far Niente, a painting by William Holman Hunt started in 1859 but not exhibited until 1867. The sitter is shown lounging dreamily on an Egyptianstyle chair similar to the one in Fig. 6.81. [Christie’s]
Fig. 6.78 An ebonised and parcel-gilt ‘Aegyptian’ low chair designed by the Glasgow-born Daniel Cottier for his successful eponymous firm, which advertised as ‘art furniture makers, mural decorators, and glass and tile painters’, and also dealt in antiques.121 [Oscar Graf]
Fig. 6.77 Made by Collinson & Lock or William Watt & Co. in c.1876, this ebonised wood table with brass feet compares to a design by Godwin published in Art Furniture in 1877. A less refined variant was still available in the 1912 Morris & Company catalogue. [© Victoria and Albert Museum, London]
326
imitation leather paper from Japan, so often seen applied to British-made commercial Aesthetic furniture. Embossed and lacquered, kinkarakawakami paper used tinfoil to create the effect of gilding, inspired by leather wall-hangings of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Demand was so great that in the 1880s the firm opened a factory in Yokohama to make wallpaper for export. By 1886 Rottmann was also importing Moorish furniture. The architectural practice of George Edmund Street was a productive environment for a host of aspiring designers, such as Morris, Shaw and Collcutt. Strong contrasting colours popular during the early nineteenth century and the polychrome decoration of the 1860s gave way to more subtle hues in the Aesthetic movement of the 1870s. The colour scheme in the Peacock Room, designed by James McNeill Whistler and Thomas Jeckyll between 1876 and 1877 for the London home of the wealthy Liverpool ship-owner Frederick Leyland, is subtle, exhilarating and was definitively ‘new’.126 Despite the invigorating Aesthetic design, the walls were covered with sixteenth-century leather from a house in Norfolk.127 The square supports designed by Jeckyll for the shelves to hold the extensive collection of blue-andwhite Chinese porcelain have similarities with structural details used by Godwin. However, elsewhere both designers continued to use turned supports derived from Jacobean and Georgian forms, the latter a style of turning also favoured by commercial makers such as Collinson & Lock or James Shoolbred & Co.
6.80
Fig. 6.79 Based on Godwin’s 1872 design and known as the ‘Smallhythe’ table, this example in mahogany is difficult to date with certainty. It was probably made by Collinson & Lock. [The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens]
327
br it ish fur nit ur e
6.76
c h a p t e r 6 : 187 0 s
6.78
6.79
6.77
devised it between them’.122 Some of the main proponents were Batley, Collcutt, Collinson & Lock, Godwin and Shaw. The Furniture Gazette credited Shaw as the leading light of modern Queen Anne, commenting that he was previously ‘a master in Gothic design’.123 The Furniture Gazette reproduced simple line drawings by Godwin ‘specially designed for this journal’,124 see Fig. 6.85a, and many of his designs were imitated by commercial makers. Between 1872 and 1874, Godwin had an arrangement with Collinson & Lock for them to use his designs; these were later commercialised, possibly without Godwin’s agreement. Godwin’s historic designs of furniture for Dromore Castle were made by Watt between 1867 and 1870. Although world renowned for his Aesthetic designs, Godwin designed ‘Old English’ and Jacobean-style furniture for The Furniture Gazette in 1876, Fig. 6.85b. A rare example of a press or ‘court’ cupboard by him is shown as Fig. 6.87. A relatively unknown Aesthetic designer was O.W. Davis, whose design for an extensive dining room suite was made by Shoolbred for the Lord Mayor of London. Despite numerous designs published in contemporary magazines, comparatively little Aesthetic furniture is recorded. One example is an Aesthetic-inspired library suite by Audas & Leggott, cabinet and art furniture makers of Hull. There were designs by R. Hunter, a maker in Eden Street, Hampstead; another designer was Charles Leggott, possibly connected with the Hull workshop and others by a ‘Mr A. Lackenby’.125 In the 1870s, Rottmann, Strome & Co. imported, with resounding success,
6.80 A group of designs of ‘Ancient Egyptian Furniture’ by John Moyr Smith. [The Building News, 5 November 1875]
Fig. 6.76 Il Dolce Far Niente, a painting by William Holman Hunt started in 1859 but not exhibited until 1867. The sitter is shown lounging dreamily on an Egyptianstyle chair similar to the one in Fig. 6.81. [Christie’s]
Fig. 6.78 An ebonised and parcel-gilt ‘Aegyptian’ low chair designed by the Glasgow-born Daniel Cottier for his successful eponymous firm, which advertised as ‘art furniture makers, mural decorators, and glass and tile painters’, and also dealt in antiques.121 [Oscar Graf]
Fig. 6.77 Made by Collinson & Lock or William Watt & Co. in c.1876, this ebonised wood table with brass feet compares to a design by Godwin published in Art Furniture in 1877. A less refined variant was still available in the 1912 Morris & Company catalogue. [© Victoria and Albert Museum, London]
326
imitation leather paper from Japan, so often seen applied to British-made commercial Aesthetic furniture. Embossed and lacquered, kinkarakawakami paper used tinfoil to create the effect of gilding, inspired by leather wall-hangings of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Demand was so great that in the 1880s the firm opened a factory in Yokohama to make wallpaper for export. By 1886 Rottmann was also importing Moorish furniture. The architectural practice of George Edmund Street was a productive environment for a host of aspiring designers, such as Morris, Shaw and Collcutt. Strong contrasting colours popular during the early nineteenth century and the polychrome decoration of the 1860s gave way to more subtle hues in the Aesthetic movement of the 1870s. The colour scheme in the Peacock Room, designed by James McNeill Whistler and Thomas Jeckyll between 1876 and 1877 for the London home of the wealthy Liverpool ship-owner Frederick Leyland, is subtle, exhilarating and was definitively ‘new’.126 Despite the invigorating Aesthetic design, the walls were covered with sixteenth-century leather from a house in Norfolk.127 The square supports designed by Jeckyll for the shelves to hold the extensive collection of blue-andwhite Chinese porcelain have similarities with structural details used by Godwin. However, elsewhere both designers continued to use turned supports derived from Jacobean and Georgian forms, the latter a style of turning also favoured by commercial makers such as Collinson & Lock or James Shoolbred & Co.
6.80
Fig. 6.79 Based on Godwin’s 1872 design and known as the ‘Smallhythe’ table, this example in mahogany is difficult to date with certainty. It was probably made by Collinson & Lock. [The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens]
327
8.56b
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 8 : 18 9 0 s
418
419
8.56b
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 8 : 18 9 0 s
418
419
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 8 : 18 9 0 s
8.65
8.67
8.68a
8.68c
8.68d
8.66
8.68b
8.68e
Fig. 8.65 The drawer of this painted satinwood bonheur du jour, in a quasi-late Georgian style, is stamped by H. Samuel and, typically, has the 484 Oxford Street address. [Bonhams] Fig. 8.66 An unusual variation of a Sheraton-revival satinwood cylinder bureau with the H. Samuel stamp and address. [Saltwell Antiques]
424
Fig. 8.67 A late nineteenth-century polychrome painted breakfront bookcase made or retailed by H. Samuel. The decoration and bowfronted lower part are characteristic of work by George Brookshaw from c.1790.84 [Christie’s Images] Figs 8.68a–e A brightly painted bedroom suite imitating furniture made in the 1780s by George Brookshaw. One piece has a Harrods label, and the high standard of finish suggests that it was made for them by an unknown specialist workshop. [Butchoff Antiques]
425
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 8 : 18 9 0 s
8.65
8.67
8.68a
8.68c
8.68d
8.66
8.68b
8.68e
Fig. 8.65 The drawer of this painted satinwood bonheur du jour, in a quasi-late Georgian style, is stamped by H. Samuel and, typically, has the 484 Oxford Street address. [Bonhams] Fig. 8.66 An unusual variation of a Sheraton-revival satinwood cylinder bureau with the H. Samuel stamp and address. [Saltwell Antiques]
424
Fig. 8.67 A late nineteenth-century polychrome painted breakfront bookcase made or retailed by H. Samuel. The decoration and bowfronted lower part are characteristic of work by George Brookshaw from c.1790.84 [Christie’s Images] Figs 8.68a–e A brightly painted bedroom suite imitating furniture made in the 1780s by George Brookshaw. One piece has a Harrods label, and the high standard of finish suggests that it was made for them by an unknown specialist workshop. [Butchoff Antiques]
425
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 8 : 18 9 0 s
8.89
8.91
Fig. 8.89 A ‘very large rich Commode’ was supplied by Thomas Chippendale to Harewood House in 1773. At £86, it was the most expensive item recorded in Chippendale’s bills. This reproduction of the ‘Diana and Minerva’ commode is smaller than the original; the marble top would have been anathema to Chippendale. [Wick Antiques]
8.90
Fig. 8.90 Sir George Sitwell and family at home at Renishaw Hall, painted by John Singer Sargent in 1900. Standing in front of a celebrated commode made in c.1775 by Chippendale, Lady Ida is arranging flowers on an Empire Revival table, the two very different furniture styles living in harmony.89 [Wikipedia / private collection]
8.92
8.93
Fig. 8.91 A giltwood octagonal table designed by Robert Christie for Buscot Park. [Windsor House Antiques] Fig. 8.92 Two designs for furniture in a revived French Empire style, designed and made by Robert Christie for Alexander Henderson of Buscot Park. [The Cabinet Maker 1891, author’s photograph] Fig. 8.93 Based on a design of 1807 by Thomas Hope, this brass-inlaid mahogany chair was made or retailed by Edwards & Roberts between 1892 and 1895. [Victoria and Albert Museum, W.29-1976]
436
437
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 8 : 18 9 0 s
8.89
8.91
Fig. 8.89 A ‘very large rich Commode’ was supplied by Thomas Chippendale to Harewood House in 1773. At £86, it was the most expensive item recorded in Chippendale’s bills. This reproduction of the ‘Diana and Minerva’ commode is smaller than the original; the marble top would have been anathema to Chippendale. [Wick Antiques]
8.90
Fig. 8.90 Sir George Sitwell and family at home at Renishaw Hall, painted by John Singer Sargent in 1900. Standing in front of a celebrated commode made in c.1775 by Chippendale, Lady Ida is arranging flowers on an Empire Revival table, the two very different furniture styles living in harmony.89 [Wikipedia / private collection]
8.92
8.93
Fig. 8.91 A giltwood octagonal table designed by Robert Christie for Buscot Park. [Windsor House Antiques] Fig. 8.92 Two designs for furniture in a revived French Empire style, designed and made by Robert Christie for Alexander Henderson of Buscot Park. [The Cabinet Maker 1891, author’s photograph] Fig. 8.93 Based on a design of 1807 by Thomas Hope, this brass-inlaid mahogany chair was made or retailed by Edwards & Roberts between 1892 and 1895. [Victoria and Albert Museum, W.29-1976]
436
437
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 8 : 18 9 0 s
Fig. 8.97 A corner of a full-size billiard table made for James Blyth, 1st Baron Blyth by Cox & Yemen. The table is veneered in ebony and, surprisingly the gilt foliage and strapwork are of carved wood, not bronze. [Nan Xu]
8.97
8.98
Fig. 8.98 The Great Chamber at Chequers Court some thirty years before the house was made available to British prime ministers by Arthur and Ruth Lee in 1921. The cluttered ‘diagonalisation’ of the room has everything for the period
– ancestors on the wall, French furniture, comfortable sofas and a touch of exoticism. In the centre of the photograph is an unusual ebony and amaranth table that had been in the room since before the 1850s. [Chequers Trust]
had always remained in demand for ecclesiastical use but Gerrard Robinson, whose work was first exhibited in the 1850s, managed to keep his Newcastle workshop open until shortly before he died in 1891. His oak library table, Fig. 8.95b, was made in 1890 for a Tyneside butter merchant at a cost of £20. With a resolutely British theme, the table carved by Robinson, with cabinet work by George Bennett, is supported by four Shakespearean characters: Othello,
440
441
Shylock, Hamlet and Richard III. Three years earlier, Robinson carved panels for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee sideboard, illustrating scenes from her life. Robinson’s carving is rustic in comparison to the Grinling Gibbons-like quality of James Peake (c.1839–1918), who had various premises in Westminster throughout his career, Fig.8.96. The botanical realism and accuracy of his work is exceptional, winning him a bronze medal in Paris at the 1900 Exposition Universelle.99 By the end of the decade, it was already clear that the tide was turning against the heavy curtaining and overupholstered seat furniture of the Victorian era. The American novelist Edith Wharton (1862–1937) in The Decoration of Houses (1897) advocated a return to Classical lines and decoration; her work was to become a major influence.
br it ish fur nit ur e
c h a p t e r 8 : 18 9 0 s
Fig. 8.97 A corner of a full-size billiard table made for James Blyth, 1st Baron Blyth by Cox & Yemen. The table is veneered in ebony and, surprisingly the gilt foliage and strapwork are of carved wood, not bronze. [Nan Xu]
8.97
8.98
Fig. 8.98 The Great Chamber at Chequers Court some thirty years before the house was made available to British prime ministers by Arthur and Ruth Lee in 1921. The cluttered ‘diagonalisation’ of the room has everything for the period
– ancestors on the wall, French furniture, comfortable sofas and a touch of exoticism. In the centre of the photograph is an unusual ebony and amaranth table that had been in the room since before the 1850s. [Chequers Trust]
had always remained in demand for ecclesiastical use but Gerrard Robinson, whose work was first exhibited in the 1850s, managed to keep his Newcastle workshop open until shortly before he died in 1891. His oak library table, Fig. 8.95b, was made in 1890 for a Tyneside butter merchant at a cost of £20. With a resolutely British theme, the table carved by Robinson, with cabinet work by George Bennett, is supported by four Shakespearean characters: Othello,
440
441
Shylock, Hamlet and Richard III. Three years earlier, Robinson carved panels for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee sideboard, illustrating scenes from her life. Robinson’s carving is rustic in comparison to the Grinling Gibbons-like quality of James Peake (c.1839–1918), who had various premises in Westminster throughout his career, Fig.8.96. The botanical realism and accuracy of his work is exceptional, winning him a bronze medal in Paris at the 1900 Exposition Universelle.99 By the end of the decade, it was already clear that the tide was turning against the heavy curtaining and overupholstered seat furniture of the Victorian era. The American novelist Edith Wharton (1862–1937) in The Decoration of Houses (1897) advocated a return to Classical lines and decoration; her work was to become a major influence.
ISBN: 978-1-78884-174-0
9 781788 841740
17500 £125.00/$175.00
www.accartbooks.com