Stansall, Charles Moore, Rich^d Fisher, W^m Fillingham,
W^m Readitt, T. Wilson. (No. 46.)
J. M. Fellows & Co., bankers, of Bridlesmith Gate, issued penny tokens,
of which there are five varieties, dated 1812 and 1813:--
_Obverse._ A view of Nottingham Castle. One penny token, 1812.
_Reverse._ The arms of the borough in a circle, payable by
J. M. Fellows, a pound note for 240. (No. 47.)
Mansfield silver shillings:--
_Obverse._ Beehive and bees, C. & G. Stanton, Hancock;
Wakefield & Co., and W^m Ellis, Mansfield.
_Reverse._ Female seated on a bale with scales and
cornucopia. One shilling silver token, 1812.
(No. 48.)
Two varieties of this exist. Messrs. Stanton, Hancock, and Wakefield
& Co. were cotton manufacturers; William Ellis a draper and woollen
salesman.
In 1813, W. Baker, hosier, of Fletcher Gate, issued penny tokens:--
_Obverse._ W^m Baker, Nottingham, an ornament between Baker
and Nottingham. Legend--a pound note for 240 tokens,
1813.
_Reverse._ One penny token within a wreath of oak and
laurel. (No. 49.)
THE CLOCKMAKERS OF NEWARK-ON-TRENT,
WITH NOTES ON SOME OF THEIR
CONTEMPORARIES
BY H. COOK
Among the many inanimate things which invite us to reflect on bygone
days and the life and activities associated with them, none are more
insistent in their invitations than the sober faces and steady tickings
of the clocks which measured out the time for our grandfathers, and
often enough for our great-grandfathers. None are more reticent of the
doings of the days that are gone; yet the very tickings are akin to a
pulsation of energy and life which seem to invite us to search out the
men who made, owned, or took pleasure in them in generations past. Nor
is the invitation unheeded by some of those whose lot is cast among
clocks and have the daily handling of them, and I will try, as one
humble manipulator, to place on record a few of the most interesting
characteristics of the makers of Newark-on-Trent, and incidentally of
some of the village makers of Nottinghamshire.
The task of putting into order the whole of the makers of
Nottinghamshire would be too large an undertaking for one individual;
but in my many years’ experience of the “Grandfather” type of clock,
I have found much of interest in the work of the Newark makers, and
of others from the county which has come my way. At the outset, I am
obliged to admit the meagre nature of the information to hand, as far
as the early makers are concerned, for I find that Nottinghamshire, in
common with the provinces generally, had, in early days of domestic
clocks, to draw on the London makers, at any rate for its best clocks;
especially was this the case as early as the latter part of the
seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, and I have found
in the neighbourhood at least one clock by Tompion, one by Etherington,
one by Knibb, one by George Graham, and one by Daniel Quare.[89]
These odd clocks, surviving from the seventeenth century to the
present time, are sufficient to indicate the way Nottinghamshire men
of those days were compelled to import from London the much-prized
“Grandfather,” or cased clock, with the newly invented royal pendulum
(the application of Galileo’s invention). But, however much this was
the case, it soon came about that the towns in the county, and very
soon a great many of the villages even, had their own clockmakers, and
it is with these we are concerned for the present.
Any clock work earlier than the typical cased clock is very rare
indeed around Newark, and I am not aware of any example of the table
clock, and of only one example of the lantern variety. Considering
that public clocks must have been in use before these days, it is a
matter for wonder that there are few or none of earlier types coming to
light, notwithstanding all our researches and bargain hunting. I have
advertised personally, in likely quarters, and kept a sharp look-out
for the last twenty-five years without success, although various pieces
of supposed early work have come to me.
Beginning with Newark, I find that William Gascoigne is the earliest
maker of the “Grandfather” clock we have, and Plate 1 shows the style
of work he turned out in the early part of the eighteenth century.
He was a maker of eight-day clocks of the usual quality of his day,
when all work was good, but the illustration shows only a thirty-hour
clock; for although I have an illustration of an eight-day clock, I
selected this because of its unusual features; for it should be noted
that, although only a one-day clock, it has a seconds dial and hand
all complete, as though it were an eight-day timepiece. The quality
of the work in the corner-pieces, which are nicely cut up and carved
after the casting, and in the hands, which show a bit of finely drilled
and pierced iron work, and in the solidity of the dial plate and hour
circle with the pretty numbering in vogue in those days, make it of
rather greater interest than the eight-day clocks by the same maker.
William Gascoigne bore the name of an old Newark family which for
generations had mixed in the life and affairs of the town. He appears
to have been in business as late as 1728, for W. Stukeley, in his
_Itinerarium Curiosum_ (vol. i. p. 106, 1776), tells how he
was informed by Mr. T. Hurst of Grantham, that he had seen at Mr.
Gascoigne’s, a goldsmith in Newark, a large gold ring, weighing 42s.,
lately brought him by a countryman who had found it upon the Fosse Way,
and he afterwards makes comment that it was supposed to show a wolf
upon it, but he found it was a fox beneath a tree, and he bought the
ring. To the name of Gascoigne also belongs, I believe, the distinction
of the mention of the earliest domestic clock in our Newark annals.
In 1678, March 11th, John Gascoigne, the glover, gave by his will to
William Cook, “The Clock and the Jack,” an interesting note, as any
allusion to domestic clocks at this date is very rare, and it gives an
idea of their value and the esteem in which they were held. I have seen
one at least of these early jacks, a wooden pillar on a heavy foot,
carrying a gear work on the top propelled by a weight running down the
back of the pillar and spinning the joint in front of a tray of metal
which covers and protects both joint and jack.
But surprises come when least expected in clock research. Having
heard of a marquetry-cased clock of Gascoigne of Newark far away
in Devonshire, I was anxious to procure it, expecting to find the
well-accredited “William” on the dial, but much to my surprise the dial
bore the inscription “Owin” Gascoigne, in Newark, and this was the
first and last of the Owin Gascoigne clocks I had seen, or ever expect
to see. I may add that it was a very early and undeniably good month
clock, and is now doing good service in a mansion in Lincolnshire.
But the puzzle of how to explain the fact that William Gascoigne is
well known, while Owin Gascoigne suddenly appears on the scene, is a
mystery, unless we solve it by the conjecture that Owin was a relation
of William, and had ordered the clock from him, a possible solution,
when we remember that the family were well established in Newark,
and were most likely well provided with this world’s goods. William
Gascoigne seems to have flourished in the town from about 1700 to 1740,
when there is a record of his death on the 23rd February.
A worthy competitor and contemporary of Gascoigne was Nicholas Goddard,
and Plate 1 shows an eight-day clock of his which is in most details
very like those made by his compeer Gascoigne, though he also made some
arched dials, of whose manufacture by Gascoigne I have no evidence. The
clock dials of both were similar, indicating that there were fashions
as well as variations to tickle the popular palate in those days as
much as in our times. The name of Goddard is even more impressed on
our local history than that of Gascoigne, for we have a record of
one Nicholas Goddard, who married in 1558, and the name runs through
our history for 150 years. In 1659 “Henrie” Goddard was paid by the
churchwardens for mending the chimes and for other work about the
church, and, for 209 lbs. of iron for the steeple stairs, the sum of
£4, 19s. 2d.
[Illustration: PLATE 1.
CLOCKS BY
WILLIAM GASCOYNE. NICHOLAS GODDARD.]
[Illustration: PLATE 2.
CLOCKS BY
WILLIAM BARNARD. EDWARD SMITH.]
Though Nicholas seems to have been the family Christian name for many
generations, the clockmaker Nicholas has left his name behind him more
frequently than any of his forbears, and there are a good many of
his clocks still to be seen ticking away with their brass faces beaming
out from dark oak cases. As far as we can tell from the little evidence
we have, his death occurred in 1741. His work was fine and artistic as
well as substantial.
About this time we hear of William Marshall, whose clocks are all of
a rather less costly make and usually “thirty hours.” One peculiar
feature in all his dials is the printing in Roman capitals of the name
between the hours 7 and 5, in the usual place, but with the “William”
one side of the 6, all in proper order, while the name “Marshall” was
so cramped into the space between the 6 and 5 that the last two letters
were always placed on the top of the “sha,” a peculiar habit, to say
the least of it. His work was not so artistic as either Gascoigne’s or
Goddard’s. They all made cast dial-plates and corner-pieces, but, in
Marshall’s case, these were not so well carved, and there was little or
no ornamental cutting on the plate or circle.
After Nicholas Goddard and William Marshall comes William Barnard, by
far the most prolific of our local makers. Barnard had a peculiarity
not known so far as I am aware in the work of any other maker: he
was sufficiently bold to place a number on all his clocks, whether
they were one-handed one-day clocks, eight-day clocks with the usual
square dials, or even a moon-arched top dial. On some of his dials
he put a round number and name-plate under the hour 12, in others he
put the name in the place usual at the period--between the hours of 7
and 5--and the number inside the seconds dial space; or, in the case
of the moon dial, the name was placed round one hemisphere and his
number round the other. These small details are a pleasing feature,
pointing us to the fact that he was not in the habit of making clocks
for other people to sell, but was what we should prefer him to be--the
maker-seller, and consequently the individual who had an interest in
the future behaviour of clocks bearing his name. He also made one
or two very unusual movements, one of which, an eight-inch dial with
alarm works, now in the Friary House at Newark, is illustrated here
(Plate 2). This is a pretty little dial, and the hand shows the alarm
hour through its tail, extended for the purpose, while the cherub
corners are like some I have seen on Gascoigne’s hood clocks, and the
number is not very far advanced, for some of his dials are numbered
as high as 1200, while some approach 1300, but I suspect that he did
not begin at 1. Only on one of his clocks have I seen the dial without
the name and number, and here they are both cut into the back of the
movement. Though by no means certain, it is very probable that Barnard
succeeded to Goddard’s business and largely added to it, for there is a
similarity in the details of the mechanical portions of their work.
The sequence of numbers on the dials has given scope for fun on many
occasions. I remember well a deaf old gentleman coming into my shop
and announcing that he had the oldest clock in Newark--made in 1050.
After much loud questioning, I ascertained that Barnard was the maker,
and when I had brought down from the workshop a similar dial, with the
number 1215 on it, he was quite a long time before he realised what age
Barnard must have been when he made the second of these two specimens,
and I had much difficulty in persuading him that the number was only
a number and not a date. Barnard flourished from 1740 to 1780, about
which date William Unwin appears with work (Plate 3) very similar to
that of Barnard’s later years. While all Gascoigne’s cases were of oak
or veneered walnut, and Barnard’s were of oak only, Unwin introduced
us to the mahogany case. Unwin’s shop was in Kirk Gate, opposite the
famous stage-coaching house of Gilstrap’s, at the northern end of
the Nottingham and Notts Bank premises, with a door into the passage
leading down the adjacent Wheat Sheaf yard. It was here he afterwards
conducted a partnership with Holt, whom we shall note later, and there
is presumptive evidence that Barnard occupied the same premises,
which have thus been a clockmaker’s shop for a century. Before it was
pulled down it presented a very old-fashioned appearance with its bow
window of many small panes, and the half-doors with the top portion
filled with bull’s-eye glass. Unwin was in business here in 1780, in
which year we find him a voter at the election. In 1791 he subscribed
five shillings to the fund for lighting the town by lamps. I have also
evidence of his being there in 1801 from a watch bearing his name and
the date letter of that year which came into my hands. Unwin lived at
the time of the transition from the brass dials to the cheaper iron
painted ones. Occasionally on the back of these latter we find the
little painted label used by the painters to indicate the style in
which the dial was to be finished, a detail which shows us that the
later practice of keeping dials on hand from Birmingham had not yet
begun. The dial plate was made and fitted, the label stuck on at the
back, and the portions printed on it which were not required were
struck off, and the painter worked from the remainder. So in examining
Unwin’s work we see fine brass dials, an odd but equally fine brass
silvered dial, and many painted ones, and in all varieties of faces the
well-worked iron hands remained. The cases, however, began to change,
the long door of the earlier makers became shorter, and rather more
detail appeared, but on the whole the plain school predominated.
We must now consider another old maker of importance, who, like
Gascoigne and Goddard, possessed an old Newark name. Solomon
Bettinson’s (so spelled for many generations, though afterwards changed
to Bettison), name appears in the 1780 and 1796 election poll books,
and on a particularly interesting clock (Plate 3) now in the Chantry
House, with a plain oak case with cushion top, a 14-inch circular brass
and silvered dial, centre seconds hand, centre day of the month hand,
and a well-engraved dial whereon is inscribed his own name, Solomon
Bettison, Newark, and above it, crowded in among the numbers of the
days of the month, is the name of Sarah Flear, for whom Bettison
originally made the clock. This Sarah Flear was married at Flintham to
Richard Greene, on 4th June 1792. Richard Greene and Sarah, his wife,
had a daughter, to whom the clock eventually belonged, and it was her
nephew, an old man of some eighty years of age, told me how Sarah Flear
had had this clock made when she was about to be married and set up
a house of her own. The Flintham register supports these statements,
and thus gives us the date, 1792, for the manufacture of this clock.
Bettison made square dials to his clocks as well as round ones, and he
seems to have been partial to those with engraved centres instead of
the usual matted and lacquered ones.
But I am neglecting some of the contemporaries of Bettison and Barnard,
who did good work in both square and round dial clocks. About this
time, 1780, there was on both square and round a pattern much in vogue,
which may be best described as the pagoda style of cutting. Some of
the round dials made by Edward Crampton, Barnard’s apprentice, and by
Stacey of Farnsfield, were fine examples of the engraver’s art. The
centres of the square dials are, at this period, treated in the same
way for the most part. Unwin, Bettison, Crampton, together with John
Crampern and Edward Smith, who are described in the marriage registers,
under the years 1773 and 1775 respectively, as watchmakers, were all
contemporaries, and followed the fashion of the time. I am afraid it
is a mistake on the part of the registers to call Crampern and Smith
watchmakers; it ought to have been clockmakers, for I have never met
with any watch of Newark make at this early date. Although not of
the particular pattern alluded to above, the clock by Edward Smith
(Plate 2), now at Ossington Hall, has a very good engraved and filled
black and silvered centre dial. Though not a bit better than other
contemporary work of this period (about 1780), Smith’s clock shows the
fashion of the time in the preference of the graver for the matting
tool. Such clocks look very well indeed in their plain oak cases,
with cushion tops and well-proportioned trunks and bases. One dial by
Crampern has a very interesting appearance. It is 12 inches square, and
the silvered centre shows a village inn, the Chequers, on one side,
while on the other is a summer-house with latticed shelter and a table
on which stands a foaming tankard. Seated are two figures, one male and
one female, each smoking a clay pipe.
The dials made by Thomas Stacey of Farnsfield are worth illustrating,
but space forbids. Stacey was married to Margaret Gamble on 5th June
1774, and the family went to live at Southwell, finding it most likely
a better centre for their business. They are to be found there until
nearly the middle of the nineteenth century.
At this point it would be well to consider one or two other places
in the neighbourhood which were as well provided with clockmakers as
Newark.
At the time Barnard and his contemporaries were flourishing at Newark,
there was at Sutton in Ashfield a family named Boot, who made clocks
in many respects similar to those of Barnard. The first of the name,
John Boot, had his own peculiar fancy as to dials. Many of his one-day
clocks had, like Barnard’s, only one hand--a cheap economy. There
was a round number and name-plate under the hour of 12, and drilled
through the dial, in line with the centre hole, were two holes nicely
decorated with turned rings, while the rest of the centre of the dial
was chased with wild roses--a very effective and distinctive treatment.
This particular dial was peculiar to him, I believe, though he made
other varieties, such as eight-day clocks similar to those of Marshall
and Barnard at Newark. Next comes John Boot, junior, who adhered to
the square dial-plates, and to many of the family peculiarities. He
was followed by John and William Boot, whose work was done about the
year 1780. About the same time we have a flat engraved dial with arched
top, centre seconds hand, and calendar work similar to that (Plate 3)
illustrating Bettison’s work, inscribed with the name, Elizabeth Boot.
I have, however, seen very few with the lady’s name on them. The very
fact of their being a clockmaking family is a rare occurrence, and can
only be paralleled in Newark in later years by the Westons.
At this period we find several makers of note in Nottingham, of whom
the earliest seems to be John Wyld. Mansfield, too, had a Glazebrook,
whose work was of the same style; but with the makers of these towns I
am not very familiar, and must leave them to more competent treatment.
Another interesting phase of the subject now invites attention. Plate 4
shows a very marked and artistic piece of work by Humphry Wainwright of
Bunny. The clock plays a tune every three hours, and on the arch of the
dial is depicted a music school of a primitive kind, with the closed
music scroll lying on the table, the fiddlers large and and small,
the horns and clarinets, the spinnet and the conductor, all make up a
very droll picture. This clock, the property of E. F. Milthorp, Esq.,
has a 14-inch square dial, and a beautifully designed mahogany case, a
vivid contrast to some of the cruder bits of work, such as that shown
in Plate 4. Wainwright seems to have devoted some attention to church
clocks, and one of his make can still be seen in the neighbourhood.
One Wainwright is found working at Nottingham in 1797, and this may be
Humphry, or perhaps John.
[Illustration: PLATE 3.
CLOCKS BY
2 1 3
S. BETTISON. W. BARNARD. W. UNWIN.]
[Illustration: PLATE 4.
CLOCKS BY
HUMPHREY WAINWRIGHT OF BUNNY. WILL. FOSTER OF MARNHAM.]
We must now just pause to note what may fairly be called some oddments
of the clock trade. Single specimens of brass dials by local makers
are found, such as that with the name, “F. Witton, Norwell,” or one
bearing an old Newark name, Samuel Callis, or the one illustrated
(Plate 4) by Will. Foster of Marnham. These must all be regarded with
doubt and reserve, from the fact that they are isolated specimens. Many
clocks were made by amateurs, and perhaps these may be thus accounted
for; or perhaps they were made to order by clockmakers, and the
purchaser’s name put on the dial. That there were makers in these
villages who made clocks for trade purposes, we have seen at Bunny
and Sutton in Ashfield. The specimen by Will. Foster of Marnham was
probably the work of an amateur, for its dial cutting is unequally
divided and poorly cut, the open work of its hands is of poor design,
the wheel work is very crude, and the teeth slots are of various
depths, the teeth points are variously shaped; in fact, the whole is
suggestive more of the file than of the turner’s cutting tools. The
case, too, is most primitive, with its long narrow door all painted and
grained; yet, notwithstanding all its deficiencies, it is still ticking
away and marking the hours. The clocks by Callis and Francis Witton are
both creditable examples of work and denote professional skill.
A very unusual clock, by William Simpson of Southwell, is now at
Brackenhurst Hall. It has a fine mahogany case, silvered dial, and
quarter-chime movement. Simpson was an ingenious mechanic, who has
left behind him, among other things, a curious thirty-hour “virgule”
escapement. He, like Wainwright and the Burrells, who are mentioned
later, was concerned with the manufacture of turret clocks. He seems to
have been in business at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
We have now come to a parting of the ways. Brass dials give place
to painted ones, and the clockmaker becomes subservient to the
cabinetmaker. Birmingham dial makers are more and more employed, with
the result that we see quite a number of similar dials. We must say
farewell to the plain oak cases, with their long doors; and view the
more recent plain oak cases with mahogany pillars, the mahogany cases,
with flat, silvered dials, such as Unwin and Holt in particular made,
the oak cases polished to a lighter colour, with mahogany facings, and
the mahogany scroll top cases with satin-wood decorations.
Unwin is the first of the new school which was to rule for the next
fifty years, and make brass dials a thing of the past. After Holt
joined him (as Unwin & Holt), we never find another of his clocks with
a brass dial, and this partnership in 1805 sees the last of the old
style.
The competition for the premier place lay between Richard Herring,
William Weston, and Richard Holt, and it was to the latter that the
honour fell. Weston was in business in 1790 and 1825, and all his
clocks had the painted dials. Both he and Herring were subscribers to
the 1791 lamp fund for lighting the streets of Newark, and in 1804 both
were volunteers. Weston was succeeded by his son James, of whom we have
evidence in 1839, and then the names of James and John appear on the
dials, and finally the general description, “Westons Newark.”
Holt applied his skill and energy to the business, which, after Unwin’s
retirement, became very large. His name occurs on some gold and silver
watches, which there is every reason to believe were made either in
London or Birmingham. It is also to be found on the dials of bronzed
brass bracket clocks, which may or may not be his own work, but there
is no doubt about the maker of his clocks of the “Grandfather” type.
Some good bracket clocks in mahogany cases also bear his name, and it
was through him and his contemporaries that these were brought to the
notice of local buyers. To this list may be added the short fall and
spring dial and drop dial clocks, though these latter were soon being
imported from Birmingham.