Nos. 115 - 119 High Street
These five buildings form the last group before we reach White Horse Street, later St. Mary's Street or Highbury Street. They continue the theme set by the previous three buildings at Nos. 112-114 in that they represent a very typical row of Victorian shops. The image on the right comes from the "Strangers' Guide" published by the printer Charpentier in 1842 and is almost the only evidence available for the appearance of the buildings in the 1860s. They do appear in the background of a drawing of Governor's House c1860, see below left, but this can do little other than to confirm that the basic structure of the buildings hadn't changed since 1842.
There is a photo of No. 119 (see below, right), after it had become the Duke of Buckingham public house in 1905 which again confirms that the structure from 1842 was largely intact. The pub had been named the Green Dragon at the time of the Charpentier drawing and was re-named the Cambridge Tavern in 1855 [see Pomeroy].
From the 1861 OS maps we can deduce the widths of the five buildings which are, 22'0", 20'6", 13'6", 13'6" and 14'0" for Nos. 115-119 respectively. In comparison to No. 114 their heights are approximately 26'6", 27'0", 30'0", 30'0" and 27'0".
Hunt's Directory (1852) - Mr. Benj. Maynard, 115 High Street; Robert Hayward, baker and grocer, 115 High Street; Wm. B. Newland, carver and gilder, 116 High Street; John B. Newland, painter, plumber and glasier, 116 High Street; Joseph L. Childs, chemist and druggist, 117 High Street; George Massey, hatter, 118 High Street; Richard Weaver, Green Dragon Public House, 119 High Street.
Post Office Directory (1859) - Robert Hayward, baker and grocer, 115 High Street; William Bingham Newland & Co., carver, gilder, printsellers and paperhangers, 116 High Street; Mrs. H. Roberts, milliner, 118 High Street;
Kelly's Directory (1859) - Robert Hayward, baker and grocer, 115 High Street; W. B. Newland, carver and gilder, artist and photographer, paper hanger, 116 High Street; Joseph L. Childs, chemist and druggist, 117 High Street; Frederick Baker, Cambridge Tavern, 119 High Street;
Simpson's Directory (1863) - Robert Hayward, tea dealer and grocer, 115 High Street; Messrs. Newland, gilder and stationer, 116 High Street; Joseph L. Childs, chemist and druggist, 117 High Street; R. ....erup, fruiterer, 118 High Street; John Quigley, Cambridge Tavern, 119 High Street.
Harrod's (1865) Directory - Robert Hayward, family grocer and baker, 115 High Street; William Bingham Newland & Co., carver, gilder, stationers, photographers and paperhangers, 116 High Street; Joseph Linington Childs, chemist, 117 High Street; Thomas Rees, Cambridge Tavern, 119 High Street.
The 1861 Census records:-
Schedule 106a - Robert Hayward (43, Grocer and Baker), his wife Eliza (42), their daughter Emma (16) and servant Eliza Amos (25)
Schedule 106b - William Rutherford (45, Lodger and [...] Genl. of Hospl. Army
Schedule 107 - Joseph L. Childs (37, Chemist and Druggist)
Schedule 108 - Richard (Colsherup?) (30, Letter Carrier), his wife Esther (34) and sons Charles (9), George (7), Maurice (3) and Frederick (1) with servant Mary A. Cartwright (15)
Schedule 109 - James A. Chandler (40, Victualler), his wife Ann Jane (33), daughters Alicia (8), Flora (2) and Eva (2 months) with mother-in-law Louisa White (54) and servants Amelia Mandell (24) and Fanny Dounes (16).
Schedule 110 - Francis E. Biddulph (26, Lieut. 19th Regt. Infantry) and his wife Annabella (20).
Schedule 111 - William B Newlands (41, Gilder), his mother Sarah (61), brother James (29), sister Elizabeth (24) and brother Henry (18) with servant Lucy Shellyer (19).
The census entry for No. 115 High Street is unusual in that the enumerator has assigned a separate schedule number for the lodger, William Rutherford, which he did not do elsewhere on High Street. Had Rutherford occupied self contained accommodation this would understandable, but in those circumstances he would be unlikely to describe himself as a lodger. Presumably Rutherford occupied the same rooms within the household that Mr Benjamin Maynard had done in 1852.
The entry for No. 116 does not appear sequentially. This may have meant that the Newlands were not present when the enumerator first called but perhaps turned up shortly afterwards. Similarly at No. 117, the Childs family may also have been away from home as it seems improbable that Joseph would be living on his own, without even a servant.
The name of the householder at No. 118 in 1861 is difficult to read but the last four letters of the surname correspond with the only identifiable letters from the corresponding point in the Simpson Directory. There seems to have been a ready turnover of occupiers at this address, often not staying long enough to appear in the directories. A similar turnover occurred at No. 119 with the public house experiencing different tenants every two years or so.
Given the jumbled sequence it is not possible to definitely assign those recorded under schedule 110 to any particular household, but it is likely they were lodgers, possibly at the public house.
Given the lack of information about these properties in the 1860s we have little option but to use the Charpentier drawing to guide the model. We can be confident that the structures of all five remained essentially the same between 1842 and 1860 but the same cannot be said for the configuration of the shop fronts. All except No. 119 appear to show bay windows for the shops and yet the detail from the 1860 drawing gives no indication of their presence. This is not unduly surprising given the number of other buildings on High Street at which the bays had given way to modern, flat, large paned windows by the 1860s, but this is not good evidence as the draughtsman may have omitted this detail from an isignificant part of the drawing.
To help resolve this issue we consider the trades of the occupants. At No. 115 Robert Hayward was conducting a grocery business through the relevant period, branching out on occasions to advertise himself as a tea dealer and baker. The grocery business was, generally speaking, one that generated good profits at this time, so it would be likely that Hayward's premises would be modernised at an early stage.
Next door at No. 116, the Newlands would have had less motivation to change the nature of their shop front. As gilders they may have been reasonable well off but they would be less likely to attract customers by virtue of their window display. By contrast, Joseph Childs may have struggled to keep his business going against the competition of the well known Saunders family chemists just four doors down the street. At No. 118 there was no continuity of business, and even when the shop was occupied it was by milliners and fruiterers who were probably not motivated, as short term tenants, to update their surroundings. All of this is conjecture of course, but in the absence of evidence there is nothing else on which to base the model. At least we can be confident that the frontage to the Cambridge Tavern had been flat throughout the period in question, though given the turnover of tenants it's unlikely that any were there long enough to update the small paned windows.
As is common with the Charpentier guide, there is little information about the roof structures to any of the buildings. The 1860 drawing offers some help but hardly enough to enable accurate modelling. The roofs will not be modelled at this stage.
The Charpentier drawing helpfully includes a peak around the corner into White Horse Street, but the depth of the Cambridge Tavern and the frontage of the buildings belong do not accord with the equivalent distances on the OS Map. The model will use the latter dimensions.