|
15 Fairfield Street, on the west side
of the road, appears at first sight to be one of a terrace
of houses. In sale particulars it has always been described
as a ‘detached house’ and close inspection of
the east façade reveals that the brickwork is not bonded
in to either of its neighbours. Thus it was built separately
and is, technically, detached!
The house, with its substantial bay windows
and taller aspect looks mid-Victorian in contrast to its apparently
older neighbours. Inspection of the deeds has revealed that
it is indeed Victorian (1888) but was built on the site of
an earlier house built about 1822 and demolished, or perhaps
partly demolished, to make way for it.
Around 1822, William Beet the younger,
a bricklayer (builder in modern terms) built numbers 15 and
11, probably at slightly different times on land conveyed
to him by his father William Beet the elder. Beet then sold
number 15 to John Mabbott, a name known to us through other
deeds and directories. His heirs sold in 1864 to William Brown
the younger, another familiar surname in Bingham, whose father
William Brown the elder lived and owned and indeed had built
next door, number 17. Brown rebuilt the house as it is today
(unless perhaps the bay windows were added later) and lived
in it until 1888 when he sold it to George Baxter (yet another
‘Bingham name’), a coal merchant. The house remained
in the Baxter family until 1952.
The first document (dated 1807) in the
bundle of deeds appears not to relate to this property at
all but relates to the title of one Andrew Fisher to land
in East Bridgford, Nottingham and Stapleford).
The first document actually relating
to 15 Fairfield Street is a lease and release of 5 and 6 April
1822 whereby William Beet the younger, bricklayer, sold the
property for £90.00 to John Mabbott, yeoman, both of
Bingham. In those days bricklayer meant jobbing builder as
much as pure bricklayer. Beet probably built the house for
sale, and Mabbott was already in occupation at the time of
the sale. The documents record that Beet built both number
15 and number 11 describing the property thus:
Dwelling house or tenement with
privy, coal house, outbuildings which were with another
tenement and outbuildings lately erected and built by W
Beet by permission of William Beet the elder (i.e. his father)
on a
Certain piece of land containing
150 square yards or thereabouts, part of land formerly known
as Town End Close or Chapel Close sometime since purchased
by William Beet the elder from William Sampson, Thomas Bettison,
William Manning and others
The trade directories of those times
have no record of either of the William Beets in 1822. The
1879 Directory lists William Beet as a builder and joiner
on Newgate Street (and also Long Acre). The documents record
that the father had conveyed the land to the son. The latter
was presumably a speculative builder and may have built one
house first and then the other using the cash as working capital.
This would explain a lack of bonding between the original
pair of houses. The wall of number 11 ends cleanly with no
sign of it having continued across to no 15, even allowing
for the later rebuild of number 15 - see below. As the documents
record the existence of number 11 it possible it was built
first but only sight of the deeds for number 11 would clarify
that. The locational details pinpoint both houses well:
Langar to Gunthorpe Ferry Road
to the east (Fairfield Street)
Chapel Close to the North
On South by dwelling also built by William Beet the younger
(ie No 11)
Although Chapel Close is named it is
unlikely to have been so as Kirkland
House deeds show it to have been built on Chapel Close
- this plot is more likely to have been called Town Close,
the alternative name given earlier in these deeds.
The deeds to Kirkland House show the
land to the south west of that property (the south side of
School Lane) was owned by William Beet. Part of that plot
is now occupied by Anchor Cottage which may have been the
elder Beet’s house - again sight of deeds would clarify
this. Anchor Cottage is much older than its remodelled exterior
implies. The first documentary reference we have found so
far to the Beet family is John Beet a coal dealer of Fair
Close (1832). The census of 1841 shows a John Beet aged 40
as a cottager in Fair Close, so named for the piece of land
on which the fair was held. This could be Anchor Cottage
In 1828/9 and 1830 a John Mabbott is
recorded in directories as landlord of the Wheatsheaf public
house (William, probably his father, had been the landlord
in the 1822 directory, the year in which John bought number
15). If he had taken over the Wheatsheaf in 1828 he would
presumably have let number 15, but we do not know to whom.
The history and relationships of two sets of Mabbotts
is difficult to determine.
The sequence of names in the schedules
for different census years is reasonably consistent for Fairfield
Street suggesting we can make some assumptions about where
people listed in the
censuses from 1841 to 1901 lived in relation to each other.
Using the information from the deeds of number 15 we can make
some intelligent guesses at which actual properties they occupied.
Prior to 1841 censuses did not give detailed
records, but in the 1841 census Thomas Clark, bricklayer,
was recorded and from a later deed document is known to have
been at no 15. He was aged 30 with a wife and four children.
By the 1851 census they had seven children and the street
is called Fair Close. Thomas Clark is listed in the directories
from 1844 through to 1865.
In 1861 the Clarks still lived at 15
Fairfield Street but with only two of the children now living
at home. Possibly three had died. Daughter Hannah (24) was
a dressmaker, an occupation becoming common in Bingham around
this time. Son Henry (18) was a bricklayer’s apprentice
- we might assume to his father.
Ann Mabbott died on 13 June 1863 and
had willed (22 December 1862) her estate to William Mabbott,
her husband’s nephew. Presumably they left no children
of their own. William was a druggist’s assistant and
lived in Wolverhampton. The deeds bundle contains a statutory
declaration by Sarah Elizabeth Drinkwater, Ann Mabbott’s
47 year-old niece (presumably daughter of the Sarah Drinkwater
who had lived with Ann in Long Acre), attesting to the history
of ownership. This is dated 28 April 1864, two days before
William sold the property to William Brown. There must have
been some difficulty proving title - a year had elapsed since
his aunt had died before he was able to sell.
So on 30 April 1864 William Mabbott sold
the property to William Brown, a joiner, for £90.00,
the same as his uncle had paid 42 years earlier. It is noted
that the house had formerly been occupied by John Mabbott,
then by Thomas Clark (see 1841,1851 and 1861 censuses) and
now by (forename missing) Wilson. Mary Clark, widow, is noted
in the 1871 census as living in Fairfield Street along with
daughter Ellen (now 21 and a milliner). The sequence of entries
in the census suggests this was a different house, so it seems
likely John Clark had died sometime before the house was sold
to Brown - his death may even have provoked the sale. In the
1864 directory William Brown is listed as joiner/builder in
Fairfield Street but Clark is also in the directory. This
probably indicates Clark died after the entry was compiled
- probably in 1863. After her husband’s death Mary moved
out to an area of Fairfield Street which seems from the maps
to have been one a group of small cottages nearer to the White
Lion, presumably all she could afford now the breadwinner
was dead. A Robert Wilson, miller, is recorded in the 1841
and 1851 censuses (aged 78 in 1851) as living nearby, possibly
at number 9 - perhaps the Wilson in occupation at number 15
in 1864 was a relative needing short term accommodation. We
shall never know!
In the census of 1861 Brown, aged 27
had been living next door with his parents and was described
as a carpenter and unmarried; by 1871 he had married and was
a builder. Presumably he bought the house to move into with
his new wife. Intriguingly his widowed mother next door (number
17) is recorded as living with her granddaughter Fanny (aged
14), who in the census of 1881 turns out to be William’s
daughter and living with her widowed father as his housekeeper
at number 17. But the census shows he had not been married
in 1861 when Fanny would have been four years old (and not
recorded as living in Fairfield Street in that census!). An
interesting family story is partially revealed here one suspects!
In the 1864 documents the property is
described as being on ‘Pond Street otherwise Fairfield
Street’. The use of various names for Fairfield Street
is described elsewhere.
William Brown committed in the indenture
of 1864 that any prospective widow of his would not have dower
- i.e. could not inherit the property. This could well indicate
an imminent marriage - to Elizabeth, another dressmaker. Seven
years later in 1871, Brown mortgaged the property for £100
at 5% to Mr Petty Bass, a plumber of Nottingham. It was normal
in those days for private individuals to provide mortgages.
The loan may have been to fund the rebuild described below.
Bass died in September March 1874 and the mortgage passed
to his widow Susannah.
By 1881 William Brown had moved back
next door to his parents’ old house, his wife had died
and his daughter was housekeeper. If the sequences in the
censuses are generally correct, then a family named Keyworth
would have been tenants at number 15 in 1881.
George Keyworth was a 29 year old lace
manufacturer’s clerk, possibly commuting by rail into
Nottingham and in a job which might have paid a salary sufficient
to rent such a house. His wife Hannah was 30 and they had
a daughter Charlotte aged 2.
Brown repaid the mortgage on 26 February
1888. The next day, 27 February 1888, he conveyed the property
to George Baxter, a coal merchant, of Bingham, at a price
of £277-10-0. This may have been George Baxter senior,
coal merchant of Long Acre, or his son George who in 1881
was already living in Fairfield Street and being described
as a coal merchant presumably worked with his father.
In 1871 Baxter junior had been living
in Long Acre, aged 28; already widowed he was living with
his parents George, coal merchant aged 75 and Mary, 68. The
1881 census shows him aged 38, with new wife Emma aged 29
and son Leonard (8), living in Fairfield Street but earlier
in the sequence in the list of entries than those in the 1871
census for Clark and Brown. He would presumably have moved
when he got re-married. If the census sequences are incorrect
and he did in fact live at number 15, then he may have rented
from Brown at first and then bought the property in 1888,
a not uncommon practice. In this case the census sequence
for Keyworth would be wrong as well.
It could help to explain the 1891 census
entry -
Occupier left after distribution
of schedules and had not returned by time of collection
He may have moved just at the time of
the census of 1891 when he is recorded as living in Long Acre,
presumably at his parents’ house after his mother had
died
On the other hand, whoever was living
there might just have been on holiday!
The 1891 and 1901 censuses show George
Baxter as living in Nottingham Road/Long Acre (Nottingham
Road is not usually so named in directories or censuses).
The 1901 census has him as 57 years old retired coal merchant
and, married to a new wife Ellen who was aged only 35. As
he died in 1904 maybe he was already ailing. Directories from
1864 through to 1893 list George Baxter as a coal dealer of
Long Acre, and Leonard in 1896. Whether George Baxter had
any relationship to the George
Baxter of the early 1800s is not known.
George junior presumably let number 15 until son Leonard married
and had need of it. In 1891 Leonard was 18 and living with
his parents, by 1901 he was married to Emily with two children
and living at number 15. His occupation was coal merchant
and Great Northern Railway Goods Agent
The documents of 1888 record that the
property now measured 900 square yards. A schedule to the
1888 document refers to an agreement of 1 December 1840 whereby
Brown (presumably William the elder, at number 17) had enlarged
his land holding by purchasing a piece of land from George
Skinner and John Pilgrim. This would explain the increase
from 150 square yards to 900, but the actual document is no
longer with the deeds bundle. In the 1832 directory Pilgrim
is listed as a maltster of Newgate Street. One of the parties
to the agreement was Robert Wilson, noted in the 1841 and
subsequent censuses as a miller in Fair Close. George Eddowes
and William Wise were also parties to the agreement –
we have not been able to trace these and without the actual
document we don’t really know what interest they had.
They, with Wilson, may have owned adjacent properties. The
difference in garden lengths of all the properties in the
block is evident between the 1841 tithe map and the map of
1883 , so perhaps all owners similarly increased their holding
by purchasing part of a parcel of land owned by Pilgrim and
Skinner.
The description of the property in 1888
was:
(land) Bounded on the north by
a messuage and land formerly the property of William Brown
(deceased) father of William Brown party hereto and son
of the said William Brown
On the south by a messuage and premises
On the East by Pond Street (note the continuing the
use of Pond Street from the 1881 census)
On the west by property now or late of Samuel Walker Chettle
(who had bought the whole of Kirkhill Close and Chapel Close
in 1867 – edged in red on the plan below)
And also
that messuage recently erected
on the said piece of land by the said William Brown on the
site of the messuage formerly erected by William Beet
Thus Brown had demolished (or perhaps
refronted, a not uncommon occurrence) Beet’s original
house and built a new one. This would explain the different
appearance of number 15 compared with number 11, both built
originally by Beet. Number 15 is taller than both its neighbours,
is built of thicker bricks and the bay windows give it an
altogether more modern mid Victorian look. It would also explain
the lack of bonding with number 11. The brickwork of the latter
shows no sign of having been cut and so may well have not
been bonded in the first place, which would support the theory
that the two houses were built separately by William Beet.
We can only speculate as to why Brown
felt the need for a rebuild. Number 11 is clearly in good
condition so is it likely number 15 was in a poor state in
1888? Was it to furnish himself with a more modern house?
If so, why go to the trouble of demolishing and rebuilding,
why not just build elsewhere? Brown’s father, though,
had lived next door at number 17 (William Brown deceased referred
to above). He was living there in 1841, when young William
was 8. Directories usually described him as a carrier although
the one for 1832 describes him as a butter factor. William
junior is described as a builder in the 1881 census, aged
48 and similarly in directories (sometimes as joiner and builder).
He seems to have sold to Baxter to move next door to his father’s
old house.
A plan attached to a document from 1906
for 9 School Lane shows the relative positions of owners at
the north end of Fairfield Street. It identifies Mr (Leonard)
Baxter’s property, which is number 15 and Mr Baldock’s
which we know was number 19. It begs the question about the
ownership of number 17 (was Brown in early 1880s) which may
have been occupied by Thomas Horsepool, fishmonger.
George Baxter died in 1904, and
left the property to his widow. His son Leonard H Baxter inherited
and he died in 1947. His widow Emily and daughters Edith and
Audrey sold the property to William Henry Kettle in 1952.
Thus the Baxter family owned the house for 64 years. In 1963
Kettle’s executors sold to Mr and Mrs Bramley, licensees
of the White Lion. We understand they lived in the house whilst
the White Lion was being refurbished. They sold in 1969 to
Mr Bowyer from whom the present owners purchased the property
in 1971. |
