4.   A MIDDLE CLASS LIVING.

'We have members eminent in every branch of the profession... We have other members coming well on in the ordinary and diversified duties of an architect's life; others fully employed in ecclesiastical works; others in arbitrations and valuations;  one or two well known as authors; and one whose architectural publications (now coming out) may serve as a model for all works of a similar class.  Let us all, then, strive, each in the particular walk he has chosen, to help each other to maintain the honour of our profession, and advance the interests of our art.'

                                   

                                Newcastle Courant, 15th January 1864, p. 5.

                                Report of the annual general meeting of the Northern Architectural Association,

                                describing the membership.

 

General Remarks.

 

To what sort of life-style could a provincial architect aspire in early Victorian England?  The passage above was written in 1864 after matters had improved substantially during the previous three decades. George Eliot, writing in Middlemarch, published in 1872 but set forty years earlier, portrayed a much less rosy picture of the prospects of enjoying a middle class lifestyle while working in one of the emerging professions [1].  The success of Mallinson and Healey's venture was inevitably going to depend on attracting sufficient business, and here a vicious circle could potentially play out: in order to build a prestigious architectural practice, recognised for undertaking predominantly high class work (and no class was higher than ecclesiastical work), it was necessary to be seen as thriving men of enterprise, but no architect could thrive who failed to attract clients.  Moreover, even if one was generally well patronised, a supplementary means of achieving a financial return was needed, both to tide one through the unpredictable intervals that could occur between the completion of major projects and to cover periods of national economic downturn.  National commercial crises occurred in 1847 and 1857, but the very thin year Mallinson and Healey seem to have experienced in 1847 was probably due simply to the firm's recent establishment, while 1857 seems not to have been any noticeably less busy than the years on either side.  Here may have lain another benefit of a wide client base: captains of industry might have been financially hamstrung by a shortage of liquidity in periods of recession, but landowners or grant-awarding bodies, scarcely or not at all.  As for the gaps between major building projects, this is where Mallinson's miscellaneous work as a surveyor, valuer, land-agent, etc., would surely have shown its worth, as also the partners' apparent willingness to spend an occasional day or two attending to a smoking chimney or flooded cellar. In any event, before seeking to identify the elements of Mallinson and Healey's success, it is natural to ask just how successful they really were, for which the obvious first line of enquiry is to seek to ascertain their average annual income.  Income tax was originally introduced during the Napoleonic wars, from 1799 to 1802 and then again from 1803 to 1816, but after its second reintroduction in 1842 (by Peel), it proved too convenient a means of raising revenue to be repealed a third time, and it was levied throughout Mallinson and Healey's partnership at the rate of sevenpence in the pound (< 3%) on incomes above £150 until 1854 and above £100 thereafter. However, very few personal tax returns of this date were preserved, and the relatively small number that have survived, have not, thus far, been systematically filed and made accessible.  This makes it necessary instead to attempt an estimation, and two possible methods suggest themselves which can be pitted against one another.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

 

Estimating the Firm's Income, 1845-62.

 

(i)            (i) Method A.

 

The first necessitates the drawing up of a more or less comprehensive list of the places of worship, schools and parsonages designed by the firm and the estimation of a reasonably reliable cost for any for which the actual cost is not known, by reference to similar buildings elsewhere.  From this it is obviously possible to calculate their approximate cost in total [2].  Excluding buildings designed after Thomas Healey’s death, insofar as they can be determined, this appears to amount to £160,000 taken to two significant figures.

 

As discussed previously, architects' commission on building projects in the mid-nineteenth century seems generally to have been charged at the fixed rate of 5%, but where Mallinson and Healey's returns are quoted separately to the building costs themselves in the ICBS archives, they often appear to have been closer to 6% (table 4), probably as a result of 'extras' considered additional to the basic contract (as discussed in the case of Barkisland in chapter seven), and so this figure has been used in calculating Mallinson and Healey's earnings.  This provides an estimated total commission on the £160,000 figure of £9,600, equivalent to £560 p.a. over a seventeen year period.

 

 

Table 4:   Commission Earned on Individual Buildings by Mallinson & Healey,

where known.

 

Building or part building

Final cost, excluding  site, commission & architects' expenses

Commission

only

Percentage of total cost

Christ Church, Barkisland

£1,450

£72.10s.0d

5.00%

Christ Church, Mount Pellon

£2,091.11s.3d

£102.10s.0d

4.90%

St. Peter's, Thorner

£1,180

£70

5.93%

St. John's, Clifton

£1,137

£63

5.54%

All Saints', Salterhebble

£2.070

£125

6.04%

St. Paul's, Thornaby-on-Tees

£2,500

£145

£5.8%

St. Philip's, Girlington

£1,300

£70

5.38%

St. Stephen's, Bowling

£2,125

£120

5.65%

St. John's, Tong Street

£815

£50

6.13%

St. Mary's, Quarry Hill (alterations)

£605

£30

4.96%

St. John's, Welburn

£1,600

£90

5.63%

St. Andrew's, Bugthorpe

£560

£35

6.25%

St. Mary Magdalene's, East Keswick

£978

£60

6.13%

St. Luke's, Broomfields

£2,570

£135

5.25%

St. Michael's, Catwick

£890

£60

6.74%

Holy Trinity, Hepworth

£1,505

£80

5.32%

St. Mary's, Westow

£710

£40

5.63%

St. Mark's, Dewsbury

£2,750

£150

5.45%

TOTALS

£26.836.11s.3d

£1,498

5.58%

 

 

Of course, Mallinson and Healey were also responsible for other types of buildings but unfortunately the surviving evidence does not allow an adequate list of them to be compiled save for the years covered by the day-books, when every job, no matter how small, appears to have been referenced every time it crossed the partners' desks.  During this period they seem to have undertaken ten substantial miscellaneous jobs altogether [3], excluding those not executed, and perhaps as many as sixty minor tasks such as checking progress on, or giving final approval to, assorted builders’ work carried out to the designs of others (usually for mill owners), assessing dilapidations (mostly for newly appointed clergy), and providing general advice on renovation and repairs for clergy, industrialists and house-holders.  Taking these two forms of business in reverse order, what might be considered Mallinson and Healey’s consultancy work seems to have occupied Mallinson in particular for approximately 500 part days during 1854-57, although it is impossible to endow this figure with very much accuracy, whereas the time taken on the construction projects is rather easier to tally and appears to have accounted for about 630 part days, of which the most time-consuming jobs were the alterations undertaken at Haley Hill Mill for Edward Akroyd (155 part days), the alterations at Wellington Mills, Halifax, for Samuel Cunliffe Lister (92 part days), the remodelling of three shops in Old Marker, Halifax, for Peter Thompson (80 part days), the extension of Birks Hall, Ovenden, for Mr. & Mrs. Gott (60 part days), and an on-going series of tasks at Brighouse Gas Works, including the construction of a cottage for the manager (58 part days).  In seeking to convert these figures into cash terms, therefore, if three part days were equivalent, on average, to one full working day, for which the partners anticipated a return in the region of, say, £1.10s.0d [4], then 1,130 part days was roughly equivalent to 380 full days, which might have earned the partners £570 spread over the four years, at about £140 per year, raising the firm’s annual income to £700.  This still takes no account of Mallinson's  earnings as a surveyor and valuer, or of the income from his work for the courts, which - to judge from his apparent willingness to drop whatever else he was doing and turn to instead - one might suppose was more lucrative. Yet even when this is included, it is difficult to postulate a joint income for the partners in excess of £800 p.a. or £400 each, assuming the profits were divided equally.  This was a figure Mallinson may have been able to supplement with dividends paid out on his investments (see below).   Healey, on his part, seems unlikely to have received anything similar [5].

 

 

(ii)  Method B.

 

This estimate. however, can be compared with that obtained by adopting another approach, albeit this inevitably presents problems of its own.  A few of Mallinson and Healey's building projects on which their commission is recorded or able to be reliably estimated, fall entirely within the years covered by the day-books, and thus the approximate number of days the partners spent on them can be assessed in the manner adopted above.  Dividing the commission earned by the number of days taken to earn it, therefore provides an example of a daily rate of return Mallinson and Healey must have considered acceptable, and multiplying this figure by 300, which was the approximate number of working days in their year after deducting Sundays and allowing a few absences for illness (chiefly by Healey), furnishes a maximum annual income they could have expected if every day had been equally productive.

 

Thus to take three cases:

 

(i)  St. Peter's church, Thorner (figs. 4a(i) - 4a(ii)).  Mallinson and Healey estimated that they would earn £70 commission on the enlargement and partial reconstruction of this church and the day-books show that the partners spent roughly 51 days on the work when the time taken on site visits is added to the time spent preparing the plans, elevations and specifications etc.  This is equivalent to a daily rate of £1.8s.0d and 300 days spent on other work for the same return would have produced an annual income of £420.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figs. 4a(i) - 4a(ii), St. Peter's, Thorner (£1,180 + £70 architects' commission):

(i) left, architects' drawing, viewed from the southwest; and (ii) right, the building today, viewed from the south.

 

 

(ii)  Calverley Infant School.  Here the day books provide both the permitted cost of the building [6], which was to fall within the range £500 - £550, and the number of days the work occupied, which was about 16.  Assuming the higher figure to have been nearer to the eventual cost, the commission would have brought in £27.10s.0d, and the daily rate of remuneration, would have been £1.14s.4d, giving a projected annual income of £515.

 

 

(iii) St. Mary Magdalene's church, East Keswick (fig. 4b).  This small building was designed and erected quickly in 1856 although it remained unconsecrated for another five years.  Mallinson and Healey received £60 commission on a project that cost £978 and the day-books indicate they spent no more than about 23 days on the work altogether, making this a particularly profitable job, yielding a daily return of about £2.12s.2d, the equivalent of £782.12.2d annually.

 

 

 

Fig. 4b, St. Mary Magdalene's, East Keswick (£978 + £60 architects' commission):

the building today, viewed from the south.

 

 

These examples show the variable nature of Mallinson and Healey's commissions:  unsurprisingly some proved much easier to plan and execute than others.  However, combining these examples by dividing the total commission they brought in by the total number of days they occupied (i.e., dividing £157.10s.0d by 90) produces an average daily return of £1.15s.0d, equivalent to £525 over a 300-day year.  If this was the  maximum sum Mallinson and Healey could anticipate therefore, assuming no projects were aborted (which occasionally they were) and no time was lost due to bad weather, visiting people who turned out not to be in, or having to redo work following changes of mind by the client, then the sum obtained for the partners' annual income by method A, appears  reasonable.  Of course, this comes before any allowance is made for expenses.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

Expenses.

 

For the calculation of these, the day-books supply a wealth of information, though less for Mallinson than for Healey, who one is sometimes reduced to treating the same.  Most notably, while Mallinson and Healey’s variable daily costs are recorded to the penny, there is no evidence at all of any fixed charges Mallinson incurred, and as the Halifax office appears, in some senses, to have operated as 'head office', it is possible its cost was greater than for its counterpart in Bradford.  Rent for the Bradford office, paid annually at the year end, was unstated in 1854 and '55, but £7.10s.0d for each of 1856 and '57 [7].   The 'District and Lamp rate', paid on the same date, was £1.19s.4d in 1854, £1.18s.6d in 1855, and unstated in 1856 and '57 [8], raising the possibility it might then have been included in the rent.  Either way, £10 p.a. was probably sufficient to have covered the two.

 

 

The second problem involves the need to distinguish between those expenses the partners could probably have passed on to their clients and those they could not.  When, for example, was a train journey a necessary consequence of an on-going job, and when was it a speculative visit made to discuss a business proposition that was destined never to become a chargeable account?  An attempt to make these difficult and sometimes subjective distinctions has been made for the first day of each month 1854-57 (which includes forty-one working days after Sundays are excluded), selected as a sample, for which the expenses that could have been passed on, seem to have amounted to about £3, and those that could not, to approximately £6.10s.0d.  When the exercise is repeated for the second day of each month (of which, again, forty-one were working days), the corresponding figures are £4 and £6.  £6.10s.0d paid out over forty-one days averages 3/2d per day, which over 300 days, amounts to ££47.10s.0d, or somewhere in the region of £23.15s.0d per partner, on top of which Healey paid a further £1 a quarter for office cleaning 1854 [9],  rising to one guinea in 1855 [10], suggesting (assuming Mallinson's expenses were similar) the £23.15s.0d should be raised to something nearer £30.

 

 

As for Mr. Clarke’s salary (and, subsequently, Healey’s sons’ wages, which in view of their young age and very irregular hours, might, between them, have amounted to something similar), this is given away by an easily overlooked note in parenthesis declaring 'Total 55 [hours worked during the past week] = £1.0s.7½d' [11], which is 4½d an hour - a rate consistent with Chantrell’s advice to Charles Winn when he wrote, '[m]any clerks may be obtained who can make very good copies of drawings at 20/- to 25/- per week' [12].  In fact, Mr. Clarke, whose precise hours of working are recorded from 30th October 1854 onwards, rarely worked as many hours as this, so his salary was probably nearer to £40 p.a. than £50, costing each partner another £20.

 

 

Deducting £10, £30 and £20 therefore from Mallinson and Healey’s estimated income of around £400 p.a., obviously reduces this to £340, which would have been vaguely comparable to the £380 p.a. 'the austere Philip Webb' is believed to have made during the second half of the nineteenth century [13].  Webb (1831-1915) lived and worked in London but was unmarried and reportedly once told his friend, Sydney Carlisle Cockerill (1867-1962) that 'he could not afford to keep a wife' [14].  £340 p.a., even in the industrial north, was probably only a lower middle class income that might sometimes have left the partners, when in company with some of the manufacturers in Halifax and Bradford, struggling to maintain appearances.  Even so, it was about nine times Mr. Clarke's salary, who could hardly have been unaware of the gulf existing between them.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

 

The Evidence for Mallinson and Healey's Life Style.

 

How do the partners seem to have lived therefore, and what, if anything, can be deduced about their houses, possessions, or leisure activities, insofar as they had time for any?  In 1854, Thomas Healey lived at 15, Sawrey Place, Bradford [15], and James Mallinson at 15 (sic), Union Street, Halifax [16], but while Healey was still at the same address when he died in 1862 [17], Mallinson moved first to 1, Harrison Road, some time between 1858 [18] and 1866 [19], and subsequently to 7, Balmoral Place, between 1866 and 1871 [20], which seems to suggest his increasing gentrification.

 

 

One immediate qualification must be that Mallinson and Healey most probably rented these houses rather than owned them.   Healey certainly seems to have rented in Worcester, judging from the advertisement in The Worcester Herald when he left for Bradford in 1845 (chapter 3).  If he continued to rent in Sawrey Place, then it is relevant to note that the rent for number 10 was £24 p.a. in 1869 [21].  The town council only adopted the road in 1864;  it was previously paved but unsewered [22].  However, an advertisement in the same year for an unspecified property in the street (but conceivably Healey's former house) described it as a 'capital house... fitted with gas [by that date at least] and with good water from a well... and also supplied with soft water', and Healey may have been able to afford better accommodation than Mallinson when their partnership was first formed, due to his sixteen years with Eginton.  The same advertisement boasted that the property 'was situate in one of the most healthy localities in the town' and that there was a large garden to the rear [23].  At different times during the 1850s, other residents in the street included John Glover, tea dealer at number 2, Mary Ann Seaman, widow of Charles Seaman, surgeon, at number 13, Miss Walker, who ran a school at number 21, and at unspecified houses, Elizabeth Atkinson, almswoman and former milliner, Mrs. Calvert, widow of the Rev. John Calvert, Independent minister, Mr. John Townsend, wool-stapler, and George Smith, timber merchant [24].  Presumably these people belonged to a similar financial class to Healey, if not in every case the same social one.

 

 

Union Street, Halifax, where Mallinson lived for most of the 1850s, seems chiefly to have been taken up with commercial and municipal premises.  The courthouse was located there, Ms. Culpen's dressmakers' shop was next door, where a 'Variety of Stays [was] always in Stock', Mr. J. Anderson dealt in fancy goods at number 26, and Eliza Highley ran 'a ladies' show warehouse' at number 32 [25].  The implications for the value of residential property in the road are difficult to judge, but Mr. John Foster, builder, lived there, as did William Woffinden, corn dealer, neither of whom would probably have been counted among the professional class [26].

 

 

Mallinson can probably be assumed to have rented his house at 1, Harrison Road, because a few years after he vacated it, the same property was advertised for letting in the local press, the rent itself, unfortunately, not being stated [27].  Harrison Road contained the town’s Assembly Rooms, 'a fine art gallery', a police station and an Independent chapel.  John Edwards, solicitor, had his office in the road, Mr. Johnson, surgeon, dwelt at another unspecified number, and Mr. Simeon Mosely, dentist, lived immediately next door to Mallinson at number 3 [28].  This would probably still have left Mallinson some way to rise [29]. 

 

 

Finally, Mallinson definitely rented his house in Balmoral Place (a short street of five-bedroom, architecturally pretentious town houses, which, if some have since suffered by being converted into flats, still retain a semblance of their former glory), because he owed £20 in rent at his death as well as £8.15s.9d in unpaid "borough rates".  That seems unremarkable, yet Mallinson also owed an astonishing £59.7s.6d as "Rent for Offices", which suggests he was still maintaining some very substantial business premises indeed.  Meanwhile, in Balmoral Place, Mrs. Jackson advertised for a 'good plain cook' in 1878, and 'a good General SERVANT' was wanted for 'a family of two' at number 13 in 1884 [30].  Christopher Taylor Rigge, corn merchant and Mallinson's fellow warden at the parish church also lived in the street, and other residents included George Deardon and Joseph Smithson, who were both manufacturers [31].

 

 

So much for the partners' houses, but can the day-books offer any clues to their possessions or leisure activities?  Here the most obvious absence in both men's lives was any private means of transport.  This accords with Geoffrey Best's assertion that 'few men with incomes below £600 a year could keep up even the most modest two-wheeler [carriage] [32].  Fortunately, of course, the railways were rapidly stretching their iron fingers across the West Riding during the 1840s and '50s, and it was an unusual day when Mallinson did not take the train to somewhere or other, although the inconvenience of having to work around the railway timetable must often have been considerable, as when he missed the 9.00.p.m. train from Brighouse on New Year's Eve 1855, and had to travel back via Lightcliffe, arriving home as the new year dawned [33].  Other forms of transport were adopted on an ad hoc basis, and Mallinson at least was a perfectly competent horse rider, even though he did not own one.  Thus, for example, on 26th April 1856 he took the train from Halifax to Leeds and travelled on to Harewood by horse, and on 2nd October the same year, he took the train to Brighouse and accompanied Mr. Higham, by horse, to Brighouse.  The distance was very short, so perhaps it is significant that Mallinson took the trouble to record it.  A more common option when travelling beyond the railway network was generally to take a coach, as Healey did on 4th November 1854 (a Saturday) when he travelled 'with [the Rev. W. Palmes] by mail [from Hornsea] to Hull and by train to Bradford, and Mallinson did on 14th July 1856 when he took the '4½ p.m. Bus to Brighouse' or on 1st August following, when he travelled 'By Cab' to Mount Pellon (my italics).  Nonetheless, an inevitable part of most weeks included many miles of walking.

 

 

There is little real evidence of Mallinson and Healey's other possessions or lack thereof, or of the furniture and fittings in their houses, including such essentials to the modern mind as water closets and a source (it would obviously have had to be gas) for cooking, lighting and heating water for washing.  'By the fifties', according to Geoffrey Best, 'gas lights were normal in middle- and upper-class houses in most towns and cities' [34], but what about the 1840s, and where did the 'middle-class' begin'?  Also, did 'most towns and cities' include Bradford and Halifax?  Healey's office in Tyrell Street lay right in the commercial heart of the town yet he was still working by candlelight on December 31st 1857, when he paid 2/- for candles and 10/6d for coal [35].  Mallinson owed £2.15s.0d at his death for Venetian blinds he had recently purchased, but other outstanding payments were due for food and consumables: £2.5s.0d to the butcher, £5.2s.0d to the chemist, £14.1s.4d to the draper, £20 to a dressmaker, and a convivial £31.4s.0d to the wine & spirit merchant.  Mallinson had also recently undergone a recent eye operation, which conceivably contributed to his death, since he owed £50 for that.  Attention from the doctor during his final days had led to £27 being due to him.

 

 

Mallinson and Healey's leisure activities were certainly not much of a draw on their income during their partnership years for the very simple reason they were so extraordinarily unusual.  Apart from Christmas Day and Good Friday, their only non-working days were obviously all Sundays, when it was virtually compulsory for all respectable people to attend morning service at the least, and for Mallinson during his churchwardenship, probably evening service too.  That confined leisure time to Sunday afternoons when, in any case, most 'frivolous' activities were proscribed.  Healey did, admittedly, take three days off work in August 1856 to attend the Bradford Musical Festival [36], but the only holiday he took during the years 1854-57 was a long weekend in Windermere in autumn 1855 [37].   Mallinson's only holiday during the same years was taken during the first week of September 1854, when he (and presumably his wife) travelled by train to Liverpool and on to Rhyl by boat on Saturday 2nd, visited Prestatyn on the 3rd and Rhuddlan Castle on the 4th, and then took a short cruise around the coast to Penrhyn castle and slate quarry on the 5th and Caernarfon on the 6th, arriving at the last in time to travel on to Llanberis for the night so that Mallinson could climb Snowdon next morning and descend via the Pyg Track to the east, in time to return to the boat that evening, before it sailed back to Llandudno on the 8th and thence to Blackpool on the 9th, from where he travelled home by train on Sunday 10th, arriving in Halifax at 10.15.p.m., in time for work the next day [38].  It sounds, perhaps, rather hectic and expensive, and certainly nothing similar was undertaken during the three following years.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Probate Records.

 

Of course one other way to gain insight into someone's wealth and social position during life, is to examine their probate records after death.  Healey’s will was proved at Wakefield on 11th December 1862 upon the oath of his widow, Elizabeth, when his estate was valued at under £2,000 [39].   Mary Mallinson's affidavit, on the other hand, sworn before Edward Hill at the County Court in Halifax on 22nd May 1884, assessed Mallinson's estate at a net value of £7,436.17s.8d, where £7,169.16s.5d was held in stocks and shares, £178.14s.1d was cash in the bank, £15 was cash in the house, £22.9s.0d was rent owed to him on 'the deceased's own Real and Leasehold Property', a further £30.2s.3d was due to him in miscellaneous debts, £295 was the estimated value of his household effects, and £25.12s.6d was the estimated value of his books and office furniture, against the sum of which his own debts amounted in all to £256.10s.2d [40].  However, although the final total is a reasonably handsome one, the problem for the purposes of this thesis is obviously the date. This was twenty-two years after Thomas Healey's death and twenty-one after the firm of Mallinson and Healey had been wound up [41], and Mallinson had obviously done other work since.  He had, in particular, been in partnership with William Swinden Barber (1832-1908) for seven or eight years, from 1863 or '64 to 1871 [42], after which, when he was still only 53, he seems largely to have dropped from notice [43], which seems curious in the light of the extensive office premises he appears to have been renting.  He might have inherited money around this time, or to have been able to rely henceforward on the dividends from his investments.

 

 

Mallinson's stocks and shares were held chiefly in railway companies [44].  The price he had originally paid for them is also stated in the affidavit and certainly in this respect he made no very great fortune, the best return coming from the Great Western Railway Company, where his investment made a final profit of 71½%, while other holdings did much less well, such as the Great Northern Railway Company shares, which realised a profit of only 13¾%.  That was still better than his holdings in the South Blackpool Jetty Company, however, which returned a loss of 15%.  Taken altogether, Mallinson’s original investments in stocks and shares appears to have been in the region of £5,700, suggesting an overall profit of around 20%.   Perhaps he had not held many of them long.   By the time of his death, forty-four years had passed since he had first set up business in Brighouse, so if the money he invested had been put aside evenly during that period, he would have needed to have saved about £130 a year.  That may not have been an impossible sum for him to bank during his partnership with Healey, even from an average annual income of just £350, considering he had no children and just one dependent niece.  Healey's position, of course, was quite different for he had five hungry children to clothe and feed.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Conclusion.

 

Mallinson and Healey ran a conspicuously busy architectural practice.  By their clients and the wider public, they were consequently assumed to be financially successful and in receipt of a steady and probably overestimated income, and the confidence this induced ensured they were the 'go-to' architects for any regional ecclesiastical work, including schools and parsonages. 

 

For the partners, on the other hand, matters naturally appeared rather differently.  Theirs was a success borne of long hours and hard work, and they were obviously very conscious of the fact.  The generating of a middle class income was not only necessary if they and their families were to live in moderate domestic comfort but also if they were to be able to keep up the appearance of thriving businessmen in their own right, able to associate on equal or nearly equal terms with the majority of their clients, and to be taken seriously as knowledgeable and respected members of the rising professional classes.  This was potentially critical.  An inability to do so ran the risk of creating a loss of trust, undermining their position, and precipitating a downward spiral.

 

 

NOTES:

  1. In the character of Lydgate, who tried to establish himself in the medical profession.  Middlemarch was published in instalments in 1871-72 but was set around the time of the Great Reform Act.

  2. See appendix 3 for a list of Mallinson and Healey’s buildings with approximate dates of completion.  These do not necessarily reflect the years Mallinson and Healey received payment for them of course, but since the object here is only to calculate their overall sum, this is of no consequence.  The jobs where the cost is not known, therefore, and for which estimations were made were as follows:   1   for any school, £1,000, except Mount Pellon School and teacher’s house at £1.500, Brighouse National School at £1,500, the large Manchester Road School, Bradford, at £2,000, and Danby school, school house and parsonage, also at £2,000     2    for any 4-bedroom parsonage or where the number of bedrooms is not known, £800,  for a 5-bedroom parsonage, £900, and for a 6-bedroom parsonage, £1,000, except  for Bradford vicarage, also at £1,000;     for the repairs, alterations, re-pewing etc. at Elland Independent Chapel, £200, at Zion Independent Chapel Halifax, £500, at  Low Moor Wibsey Chapel (Holy Trinity), £500, at Infirmary Street Baptist Chapel, Bradford, £1,000, and at Halifax parish church, £1,000;     4   for St. John’s, Langcliffe, £1,500, for All Saints’, Mappleton, £1,500, for  St. Peter's, Arthington, £2.000, for Bradford Scottish Presbyterian Church, £2,000, for St. Mary & All Saints’, Cundall, £2,000, for St. Mark’s, Low Moor, £2,000, and for St. Thomas's, Charlestown, £2,000;   5   for the chancel at All Saints’, Ilkley, £800, for Copley cottages and parsonage,  £1,000, for  Haley Hill cemetery chapel, £4,000, and for all other cemetery buildings, £1,000.

  3. See appendix  2.

  4. The more renowned Robert Dennis Chantrell, working in Leeds, charged two guineas a day for small jobs in 1838, 'and rather less earlier in his career' (Webster, R.D. Chantrell, p. 174).  Mallinson and Healey might have hoped for a slightly greater daily return than £1.10s.0d therefore, but given how conscious they were of the need to be price competitive, then if so, probably not by very much.

  5. Middle class incomes in England  c.1850 ranged from around £100 to £800, giving a mean of about  £450.  (See H.M. Boot, 'Real Incomes of the British Middle Class, 1760-1850'  in The Economic History Review, New Series, 52/4 (November 1999), pp. 638-668.)  However, '[i]n 1858  the Times asked whether £300 was a sufficient income to support a married gentleman' (J.C. Bennett, ' "And One for My Friend the Barmaid": Pew-renting and Social Class in English Anglican Churches in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries' in Anglican and Episcopal History, 86/2, June 2017, pp. 167-185 (p. 174)).

  6. D/B, 10th November 1854.

  7. D/B, 31st December 1856 and 31st December 1857.

  8. D/B, 30th December 1854 and 31st December 1855.

  9. D/B. 5th April 1854.

  10. D/B, 31st March 1855.  It seems remarkable that Mrs. Heap, the cleaner, could wait so long for her wages, or, if she received them in advance, that she could manage her housekeeping on this basis. Still more amazingly, in 1856 she appears to have been paid annually, when the rate had dropped to £2.6s.0.d (D/B, 31st December 1856) (unless that was for a half-year).  Perhaps she could not manage, because the day-book for 1857 mentions payment only to the 'woman cleaning' and the payment this time was £2.5s.0.d (D/B, 31st December 1857).

  11. D/B,  2nd February 1856.

  12. Webster, R.D. Chantrell,  p. 164.

  13. Hoppen, The Mid-Victorian Generation, p. 420.

  14. https://www.laurasbeau.co.uk/news-and-blog/news/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-philip-webb/

  15. White's Directory, 1854, p. 431.

  16. White's Directory, 1854, p. 573.

  17. Bradford Observer, 13th November 1862, p. 8.

  18. William White, Directory and Topography of the Boroughs of Leeds, Halifax, Huddersfield and Wakefield, etc(Sheffield,  Robert  Leader, 1858), p. 676.

  19. William White, Directory of Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax, Wakefield, Dewsbury, etc.  (Leeds, William White, 1866), p. 712.

  20. Malcolm Bull's Calderdale Companion.

  21. The Bradford Observer, 22nd June 1869, p. 1.

  22. The Bradford Observer, 27th October 1864, p. 7, & 17th December 1863, p. 3.

  23. The Bradford Observer, 3rd December 1863, p. 8.

  24. The Huddersfield Chronicle, 16th February 1856, p. 2, and The Bradford Observer, 15th February 1857,  p. 5,  19th July 1855,  p. 1,  17th January  1856,  p. 5,  4th April 1856, p. 5,  17th November1859, p. 8,  & 8th March 1860, p. 5.

  25. The Halifax Courier,  15th December 1855, p. 1, 15th January 1853, p. 1, & 15th April 1855, p. 1.

  26. The Bradford Observer, 30th December 1858, p. 8,  &  3rd March 1859, p. 8.

  27. The Halifax Courier, 16th January 1869, p. 8.

  28. The Bradford Observer, 15th October 1863, p. 8,  Sheffield Independent, 18th September 1867, p. 4,and  The Halifax Courier, 10th October 1868, p. 2.

  29. For consider this passage from J.B. Priestley's Bright Day, published, admittedly, in 1946, but set in Bradford, aka Bruddersford, in1913:  'They lived in a gloomy little house in one of those squares, too near the centre of the growing city, that had gone sliding down the social scale, leaving the manufacturers and merchants and now hobnobbing with the cheaper dentists, agents for corsets,and touring actors'.  (J.B. Priestley, Bright Day (London: Mandarin, 1994), pp 179-180.)

  30. The Yorkshire Post & Leeds Intelligencer,  21st October 1878, p. 1, and The Yorkshire Post, 26th February 1884, p. 2.

  31. The Yorkshire Post & Leeds Intelligencer,  1st July 1876, p. 2,  The Halifax Guardian, 15th February 1868, p. 8,  and The Bradford Observer, 10th February 1870,  p. 3.

  32. G.F.A. Best, Mid-Victorian Britain, 1851-75 (London: Weidengeld & Nicholson, 1971),  p. 36.

  33. D/B, 31st December 1855.

  34. Best, Mid-Victorian Britain, 1851-1875, p. 42.

  35. D/B, 31st December 1857.

  36. D/B, 26th, 27th & 28th August, 1856.

  37. D/B, 26th, 27th, 29th & 30th October 1855.

  38. D/B, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th & 11th September 1854.

  39. Calendar of  Probate.

  40. The apparent discrepancy of £43.6s.5d in these accounts was the cost of Mallinson's funeral expenses.

  41. The latest evidence that the firm was still in business under that name is to be found in The Bradford Observer for 20th August 1863, p. 1, in an advertisement putting the building of St. Barnabas’s, Heaton, out  to tender.

  42. The Leeds Times, 18th March 1871, p. 2.

  43. But see the Afterword below.

  44. Viz., the Great Northern Railway (£915.14s.6d.), the Great Western Railway (£910.0s.0d), the Midland Railway Company (£777.4s.0d), the London and North Western Railway (£586.8s.10d), the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (£477.18s.4d), the North British Railway Company (£282.10s.0d), the Railway Debenture Trust Company (£235.0s.od), and the Leeds Tranway Company (£135.0s.0d).

 

CHAPTER 5.  ►