Eeghen (1959), No 1344 D irectory(1140)*.

2 5 Goldsmiths’ Company, Court Book S Part 1; 83, 125, 199, 222, & 504. 26 V & A , 86 NN3, Sir Richard Hoare - Bills:

134, Oct 9th 1732 Bought of Nathl. Tumer & Co. Includes huckaback, Holland diaper and sets of damask which from the price were probably German.

136, Aug. 10th 1744 Bought of John and Mick Tumer. Damask tablecloths and huckaback napkins.

137, July 10th 1750 Bought of John Tumer & Co. Includes Lancashire and Irish sheeting, huckaback, Swiss diaper and several damask tablecloths (probably German).

and Piccadilly too.27

Linen was included among the City purchases of the family in the late seventeenth century, with both plain linen and napery purchased from Benjamin Thorowgood in 1683 and Thomas Salter in 1686.^®

b) Business structure

The Earl of Bedford’s suppliers Thorowgood and Slater were both recorded in the 1692 poll tax returns as living in the ward of Comhill and were amongst the most

substantial linen drapers in the city with rack rents assessed at £100 and £118, and stocks of £800 and£400 respectively. They each employed four menservants (Appendix Cl). Benjamin Thorowgood was a cadet son of Alderman Richard Thorowgood who had traded as a linen draper in Fenchurch Street. ^9 Like his father, Benjamin was concerned with City government, being elected alderman in 1683 and Sheriff in 1685, when he was also

knighted. Apart from the Thorowgoods a number of other linen drapers served as aldermen including Edward Honywood, James Barron, Ralph Ingram and Sir Thomas Abney.3® They, together with most of the major linen drapers were members of one of the great twelve City companies, reflecting the elite nature of the trade.

The costs were high to establish and run a substantial wholesale/retail operation with adequate space to store large quantities of linens and to provide elegant surroundings in which to display goods to retail customers. Francis Jenkes’ shop on the ground floor of his house was divided from the counting house by a screen and was equipped with counters, cases and leather chairs. The shop was lit by three sash windows and both rooms heated with stall g ra te s .J o h n Sherman’s shop and ‘counting house’ were similarly equipped but in addition were hung with tapestry.^2 Rents were high for such premises with half the linen drapers in 1692 being assessed for rack rents of £50 or more, with seventeen in excess of £100 (Appendix Cl). In The London Tradesman o f 1747, Campbell considered that a linen draper required starting capital of between £1,000 and £4,000, whereas Collyer in 1761 thought that £1,000 was needed for a genteel retail s h o p . I n the Poll Tax returns, stocks were assessed within notional bands rather than being actually valued which gives them a comparative value but no guide to the validity of

27 Davis (1966), 196.

2 8 V & A , RC U 21, Wobum Abbey bills 1666-93.

129, 20th January 1683, ‘Bought of Benjamin Thorowgood and John Dod’. Includes plain tabling, ‘Flexen’ napkins, and Holland diaper tablecloths and napkins. V & A, RCK 3, Bedford Haberdashery Bills, ‘Bought of Tho. Salter’, includes napery. 2 9 Richard Thorowgood bought linens from the merchant W illiam Atwood.

PRO, C l09/19 Bundle 6. ‘Ballance for the Partabie Acct in thirds’, 31st Dec. 1654, Thorowgood has four entries with a debt totalling £715.9.0.

3 0 Beaven(1913). 31 1687 JENKES.

32 1723 Sh e r m a n. For the design of shop interiors, see Walsh (1995). 3 3 Cited in Earle (1989), Table 4.1, 107.

Campbell’s figures. However, a sample of linen drapers’ inventories from the Orphans’ Court shows that several thousand pounds could be employed in trade stocks: Fisher Dilke in 1680 had some £1,500 of wares; Andrew Kenrick in 1690, £3,300; and in 1729

Stephen Aynsworth’s share of the co-partnership with Mr Timothy Cockshutt and Mr Jn°. Billers was £4,000 (Appendix C4).

Ignoring household goods, the capital employed in a linen draper’s business was not only the value of the wares but also ready money and the balance between debts and credits. Thus Fisher Dilke had capital employed of some £2,000 (£1,496 wares + £1,033 ready money + £1,736 debts - £2,259 credits) and Andrew Kenrick about £8,000 (£3,320 wares + £43 ready money + £14,770 debts - £10,035 credits). These simple calculations

presuppose that the debtors in due course discharged their debts. If they failed to do so, the debts would become losses and the capital employed rise. As in a number of cases some of the debts were deemed ‘desperate’ the capital employed was effectively higher. William Greene in 1670 had desperate debts of £1,899 giving his capital employed as £2,942 (£1,514 wares + £56 ready money + £4,799 debts - £3,427 credits). If these debts were recovered his capital employed would be only £1,043 (Appendix C4).

For wholesale linen drapers driving a considerable trade, efficient debt collection was essential, coupled with the negotiation of advantageous credit terms with the overseas m erch an ts.T h e merchant William Attwood’s ledgers show that diverse credit terms could be agreed with payment due between one and ten months. Despite the agreements, payment was rarely on time and Attwood did not charge interest on the excess. Typical of many examples is the account of

1659 Feb 16 By Augustine Drey & Wm Bucknell to pay at 6 m°. 10 ps of fine hempen qt 497 ells at 6 V2[d.] £13. 9. 2 27 ps Ossinbrigs 1232 ells @ 56^^ p. 1500 £45.19.10

£59. 9. 0 Payment was recorded ‘by cash’ on Oct 6th, seven weeks late.

The unit cost from Attwood appears to have depended upon both the credit term and the quantity: Augustine Drey & Wm Bucknell were charged 6Vid per ell for 497 ells of fine hempen at 6 months; William Gilly 6d per ell for 3303 ells at 5 months; and James Barron 53/4d per ell for 3800 ells at one month. Some contracts allowed interest to be paid by Attwood for settlement within the credit term: John Brett on 30th March 1660 agreed to pay at ‘9 months to Rebate in 14 days’ - he paid cash on 5th May and was allowed a rebate at 6 per cent.35

3 4 Linen drapers regularly took legal action to recover debts; see Earle (1989), 409-414. 3 5 C l09/21 part 2, Large Ledger 1654-1663, 71-74.

Attwood’s ledgers also illustrate that partnerships were not uncommon among the larger linen drapers. Partners were sometimes related by blood or marriage such as John and Michael Tumer, or Roger Gray and his cousin James B a rro n .T h e partnership indenture of 1698 between Abel Wilkinson and John Timbrell indicates the areas of mutual concern. The agreement was for seven years to trade together from The Star in Cheapside, each providing £1,000 of capital. They clearly intended to trade in all goods jointly as they were

‘not to trade privately as a linnendraper without the consent of the other’. It appears that this was the standard pattern, unlike the major overseas merchant who sometimes had several partnerships for different commodities running concurrently.N one the less, as with the merchants, the partners did not necessarily have equal shares; for example, Thomas Berriffe had two-thirds of his partnership with George Dyer.^^ Partnerships were dissolved either on the death of one of the partners or at the end of the term. This could mean that some linen drapers worked with a succession of partners. The partnership of Stephen Aynsworth, Timothy Cockshutt and John Billers was dissolved on Aynsworth’s death in 1729. The next year among those recommended to de Neufville was John Billers & Co. and subsequently the 1740 directory included Cockshutt & Frie (Appendix C2).

These partnerships spread the financial risks in a trade that had a considerable rate of bankruptcy, although it did not compare with that of tavern keepers or overseas merchants.40 Indeed one of the inventory sample, Andrew Kenrick, was apparently insolvent.^^ In the late eighteenth century,

The infant ‘Thunderer’ was told that ‘The nobility game with dice - the ladies with cards - the linen drapers with bills - and the lower class with lottery tickets . . . and the

consequences are proportioned to the quality of the gamblers, being in four words, SUICIDE, ADULTERY, BANKRUPTCY, and the GALLOWS! 42

c) Wares

Campbell, perhaps because he was considering retail rather than wholesale trade, did not acknowledge the financial skills required of the successful linen draper, but was very aware of the necessity to have an intimate knowledge of the goods.

36 In his w ill, PRO Prob. 11/324, sig. 103, 2 Aug. 1667, James Baron left ‘to my cousin Mr Roger Gray and his w ife’ £30. On his death. Gray owed James’s widow Mrs Anne Baron £505, 1686 GRAY. 3 7 Guildhall 20347 Indenture 24 June 1698,

3 8 A possible exception was the partnership of Thomas Came and Dudley Short. Atwood’s debtors in the 1654 account included three entries for Came, a further three for Short and a single entry for ‘Tho. Came & Dudley Shorte - July next at bristow’. C l09/19 Bundle 6. There is no reference to this partnership in Came’s inventory in 1673, simply his extensive wares in London and in Bristol.

3 9 1681 B E R R I F F E .

40 Earle (1989), 123-130, 364 n. 35.

41 1690 Ke nri ck . If all his debts were collected, there was a deficit of £1,026. However, he had

property in Hertfordshire and his father Alderman Andrew Kenrick also left him lands in Kent in his will o f 1652. Prob. 11/231, sig. 329.