text:
BC study says Latinos are key to future of US Catholicism

The future of Catholicism in America rests heavily on the church’s ability to attract and retain young Hispanics whose connection to secular life is stronger than to the faith that sustained their parents, according to a new national study led by Boston College researchers.

The three-year study, which will be released Monday, said that failing to bring more young Hispanics into the church has broad consequences at a time when Latinos constitute 40 percent of all Catholics in the United States.

“The secularization of Hispanics is the biggest threat to the future of the Catholic Church in America,” said Hosffman Ospino, an assistant professor of theology and ministry at Boston College and lead author of the report. “We run the risk of losing a whole generation of Catholics.”

Just 3 percent of Hispanic Catholic children attend church schools and a declining number of Hispanics under age 30 attend Mass.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:
Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

The report, titled “The National Study of Catholic Parishes with Hispanic Ministry,” is the first national study to focus exclusively on Catholic parishes with Hispanic ministries, Ospino said. Through broad surveys and personal interviews, the researchers sought to document the scope of the Hispanic influx, which is responsible for 70 percent of the church’s growth since the 1960s.

“If it weren’t for the Hispanic influx, the Catholic Church in the US would be in major decline,” Ospino said.

Researchers note that the arrival of 40 million Hispanic immigrants over the past half-century is 10 times the immigration rate of another ethnic group that transformed the church: Irish emigres from 1860 to 1960.

The report, conducted in collaboration with the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, will be released in Boston at a gathering of prominent Catholic leaders, and it comes at a moment when the church for the first time is led by a pontiff from South America, Pope Francis.

The study makes a clear call to action, urging the church to develop a strategy to address the issues facing Hispanics and their parishes.

The issues take on added importance as the Catholic Church becomes more reliant on Hispanics, specialists said. By 2050, Hispanics will probably account for more than 60 percent of American Catholics.

“It will be an entirely different Catholic experience,” Ospino said.

But without a shift in focus, the parish structure in the United States will decline dramatically, as it did in Europe, Ospino said.

“Somehow, the church needs to change strategies and attitudes toward Hispanics in the parishes,” Ospino said. “It’s something the church has to come to terms with.”

Because the stakes are so high, efforts are underway to bolster the church’s presence in the Hispanic community.

‘The secularization of Hispanics is the biggest threat to the future of the Catholic Church in America.’

Quote Icon

Mar Munoz-Visoso, executive director of the Secretariat for Cultural Diversity in the Church for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the group is working to increase the number of Hispanic seminarians and priests, and she said that Hispanic offices have been established in dioceses throughout the United States.

“The Catholic Church in the US has made strides in meeting the spiritual needs of Hispanics, yet the needs of such a growing and huge community require the church to do more,” she said.

Ken Johnson-Mondragón, director of research and publications at the Institute for Faith and Life, a nonprofit Catholic leadership institute that specializes in ministry for young Hispanics, said reaching younger generations has been a “major preoccupation” for Hispanic ministries.

“The reach with the next generation is not very strong,” he said. “It doesn’t hold the attraction.”

In a secular society in which religion seems to be “on the back burner of life” and parents are struggling to pass their faith on to their children, churches face a stern challenge, Johnson-Mondragón said.

“The culture doesn’t help, and the church doesn’t have the tools,” he said.

The Rev. Thomas Domurat, pastor of Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in East Boston, said the parish has reached out to the Hispanic community, going door to door to promote prayer groups and Bible study. On an average weekend, some 2,700 people attend Masses, the vast majority of whom speak Spanish.

“The Spanish Masses get the big crowds,” he said. The church also offers confessions in Spanish, drawing worshippers from outside the parish.

But like other churches, Most Holy Redeemer struggles to attract Hispanics who have grown up in the United States.

“They are captured by the culture around them,” Domurat said.

On Sunday, Most Holy Redeemer filled every pew for its noon Mass in Spanish. Parishioner Maria Luperon, 57, said it is typical to see a full house at each of the church’s four Sunday Masses. She and other congregants said the church appeals to the local Latino community by offering a wide variety of classes and activities in Spanish, with several specifically geared to young people.

“This church is very open to everybody,” said Luperon, a native of the Dominican Republic who has sung in the church choir for 18 years.

Carlos Monroy, 22, was born in the United States to parents from El Salvador. He said he attends church each week, but he knows many young people who do not, though most were not brought up in the church.

Carlos Rodriguez, 30, emigrated from El Salvador to Everett at 22 and first visited the church shortly after his arrival. Initially, he said, he wasn’t deeply involved, but that changed after he joined a Bible study group.

Rodriguez now leads a group that visits community members at home and evangelizes to them. He said that effort makes a difference.

“I see this church very active, actually,” he said. “I see others not as big as this one.”

The authors of the BC study found that even as the ranks of Hispanic Catholics burgeoned in recent decades, the church was often slow to adapt. Only 25 percent of Catholic parishes have any Mass in Spanish, with the vast majority in the South and West. And those Masses are sometimes held at less convenient times that make them feel like “an addendum to the church schedule,” Ospino said.

“Language remains a barrier,” he said.

In the Boston archdiocese, just 40 of almost 300 parishes offer Spanish-language Masses, he said.

That has contributed to the tenuous relationship many Hispanics have with the church, researchers found. Many churches reported that Hispanics remain on the periphery of church life, and that active participation “remains at a minimal level,” the study found.

The study, which was funded by anonymous donors and the Our Sunday Visitor Institute, surveyed nearly 100 directors of Hispanic ministries in dioceses across the country.

Churches have long focused their efforts on first-generation immigrants and pastoral outreach to Hispanic youth, especially US-born, remains modest. As Hispanics move toward becoming a majority in the US Catholic Church, that needs to change, the report found.

Much of the Catholic experience in the country during the next few decades will be significantly shaped by how the church reaches out to this important group and whether young Hispanics in this age bracket, at least those living in Catholic homes, decide to self-identify as Catholic,” the report says.

On average, parishes with Hispanic ministries have fewer resources, and many struggle financially, the BC report found. In parishes with Hispanic majorities, money is even scarcer.

And the report concluded that relatively few Latinos hold positions of leadership in the church, Ospino said, and many “champions of Hispanic ministry” are near the end of their careers.

“Who is going to replace them?” he asked.

Globe correspondent Jeremy C. Fox contributed to this report. Peter Schworm can be reached at Follow him on Twitter @globepete.
Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.
We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.
Continue reading by subscribing to for just 99¢.
 Already a member? Log in Home
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of
Marketing image of


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Christopher L. Gasper

Cardinals show they won’t simply roll over

Outfielders Matt Holliday, Jon Jay, and Carlos Beltran celebrated the Cardinals’ 4-2 victory over the Red Sox in Game 2 of the World Series.

Jim Davis/Globe staff

Outfielders Matt Holliday, Jon Jay, and Carlos Beltran celebrated the Cardinals’ 4-2 victory over the Red Sox in Game 2 of the World Series.

Admit it, you thought after the latest David Ortiz postseason home run heroics that maybe this would be just like 2004, when the Red Sox used the St. Louis Cardinals as a World Series welcome mat, wiping their cleats all over them on the way to breaking an 86-year curse.

The redoubtable and lovable 2004 Idiots didn’t allow St. Louis to lead for a single inning of that four-game sweep. It was one big victory lap. There was a lot of 2004 nostalgia with Pedro Martinez, Derek Lowe, and Trot Nixon addressing the media before Thursday night’s Game 2 and members of the team throwing out ceremonial first pitches.

After the Cardinals’ Chernobyl-level defensive meltdown in an 8-1 loss to the Sox in Game 1 and Ortiz’s sixth-inning thunderclap in Game 2, it felt like the history could be repeating itself.

It’s not. Credit the Cardinals. They showed why they won 97 games, why they’re considered a model franchise, and why 2004 is about as relevant in this series as a dial-up modem.

Get Sports Headlines in your inbox:
The Globe's most recent sports headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

St. Louis could have become defeated or dispirited after Ortiz’s two-run opposite-field shot into the Monster Seats in the sixth erased its 1-0 lead. Instead, the boys from the Show Me State showed some mettle and rallied back with three runs the next half-inning. That was enough for a 4-2 win, enough to send the series back to St. Louis knotted at a game apiece.

Now, the series has a different look heading into Game 3 Saturday, especially with the concerns about Clay Buchholz’s health for Game 4 and Game 3 starter Jake Peavy’s recent effectiveness.

There had been 53 previous times that a team had taken a 2-0 lead in the World Series, 42 of them winning it all. The last nine teams to take a 2-0 lead have won it. But the Sox were not able to join that list.

“We fully expected this to be a hard-fought series,” said Red Sox manager John Farrell. “[It’s] not surprising that we’re in the position we are.”

Fenway was at full roar after Ortiz slugged a 3-2 changeup from Cardinals starter Michael Wacha over the Wall with Dustin Pedroia aboard — Ortiz’s second two-run homer in two nights and fifth homer of the postseason.

That snapped a 19-inning scoreless streak for the 22-year-old Wacha, who went six innings, allowing just three hits and striking out six.

But St. Louis came back in the seventh with a three-spot. If the Cardinals had bad luck in Game 1 in the field, they made their own luck on the basepaths Thursday night.

David Freese earned a one-out walk. Jon Jay lashed a single to right field. That was it for Sox starter John Lackey, who once again was asked to walk the tightrope with no run support safety net.

Lefty reliever Craig Breslow came in to face Daniel Descalso. Pete Kozma, who was at the epicenter of St. Louis’s defensive ineptitude in Game 1, had come on to pinch run for Freese.

With Descalso at the plate, Kozma executed a double steal with Jay, the runners taking third and second, respectively.

The steal appeared to catch the Red Sox by surprise. These are not the Sons of Vince Coleman. St. Louis had only 45 steals during the regular season, last in the National League. That’s hard to believe for baseball fans who remember Whitey Herzog’s racetrack Redbirds of the 1980s. St. Louis had only three stolen bases in 12 prior postseason games.

It seemed like the Cardinals saw something in Breslow they could take advantage of. St. Louis manager Mike Matheny was coy after the game.

“Can’t give you all of our secrets here,” said Matheny. “We’re always working together. We had an opportunity to use our coaches, use our bench, use guys’ instincts, and we play it every way.”

After Descalso walked to load the bases, Matt Carpenter lifted a sacrifice fly to left. Now, it was time for Boston’s defense to fail.

Sox catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia couldn’t field Jonny Gomes’s off-line throw home. Breslow, who was backing Saltalamacchia up, tried to nab Jay going to third. He threw a deep ball that Tom Brady would have been proud of, allowing Jay to score and give the Cardinals a 3-2 lead.

It was 4-2 after Carlos Beltran, who took a pain killer injection just to be able to play after leaving Game 1 with a rib contusion, singled home Descalso.

Suddenly, the Fenway frenzy had turned into a stunned stillness.

The precocious Cardinal bullpen tandem of Carlos Martinez (age 22) and Trevor Rosenthal (age 23) kept things quiet. They got the final nine outs, six via strikeout.

To be a preferred member of the Cardinals’ bullpen you have to be 25 or under and throw over 95 miles per hour. Where does St. Louis find these guys?

On a cold night, the Cardinals had thrown cold water on the Red Sox positioning themselves two wins from a World Series crown.

This isn’t football. There are no neon-lit changes of momentum. But it was clear the Cardinals’ rebuttal to Ortiz’s homer changed the course of the game and maybe the series.

“I believe it is a momentum sport,” said Matheny. “I don’t think there are statistics to back it, but I do know when we’re able to turn that around what the environment is inside our clubhouse and our dugout, and those guys feed off each other . . . The guys stayed aggressive today. That’s the difference between [Game 1] and [Game 2].”

Now, the burden of proof in the series shifts to the Sox with the next three games by the banks of the Mississippi River.

Buckle up, it looks like this series could be more 1946 or 1967 than 2004.

Christopher L. Gasper can be reached at Follow him on Twitter @cgasper.
Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.
We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.
Continue reading by subscribing to for just 99¢.
 Already a member? Log in Home
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of
Marketing image of

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-148-41-166.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-30
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Sprinter Campfire Edition 29FK

  • Sprinter Campfire Edition 29FK Floorplan Image

    This Keystone Sprinter Campfire Edition travel trailer model 29FK features a front kitchen, a rear bedroom, and more!

    Step inside and find a spacious interior due to the slide which includes a tri-fold sofa sleeper, and booth dinette.  There is a 32" TV straight in the door along the interior wall. To the right of the door find a lounge chair, and the start of the kitchen appliances which includes a 7 cu. ft. refrigerator, and a three burner range. The counter continues along the front wall and features an angled double sink in the front curb side corner.  There is plenty of prep space and storage both above and below the counter-top, and it ends with a pantry in the road side front corner.

    A side aisle bath found to the left of the door along the road side includes a radius shower, a toilet, sink, and linen storage. There is also an entry into the bath from the rear bedroom for added convenience.

    The private bedroom features a slide out residential size queen bed with overhead cabinets, a dresser, and a wardrobe, plus so much more.

    Have a question about this floorplan?
    Contact Us

    Sleeps 5
    Slides 2
    Length 33 ft
    Ext Width 8 ft 4 in
    Ext Height 11 ft 1 in
    Int Height 6 ft 8 in
    Interior Color Alder, Ashford, Pumice
    Hitch Weight 940 lbs
    Dry Weight 7340 lbs
    Cargo Weight 2660 lbs
    Fresh Water Capacity 81 gals
    Grey Water Capacity 68 gals
    Black Water Capacity 34 gals
    Tire Size ST225/75R15D
    Furnace BTU 35000 btu
    Available Beds Residential Queen
    Refrigerator Type Double Door
    Refrigerator Size 7 cu ft
    Cooktop Burners 3
    Number of Awnings 1
    LP Tank Capacity 30 lbs.
    Water Heater Capacity 6 gal.
    Water Heater Type Gas/Electric DSI
    AC BTU 13500 btu
    TV Info LR 32" HD LED
    Awning Info electric
    Axle Count 2
    Number of LP Tanks 2
    Shower Type Radius

    Similar Travel Trailer Floorplans

We're sorry. We were unable to find any results for this page. Please give us a call for an up to date product list or try our Search and expand your criteria.

Showing 1 - 0 of 0
Favorites ()
Showing 1 - 0 of 0
Zip Code

Enter your Zip Code to find RVs nearest you

Bowling RVs is not responsible for any misprints, typos, or errors found in our website pages. Any price listed excludes sales tax, registration tags, and delivery fees. Manufacturer pictures, specifications, and features may be used in place of actual units on our lot. Please contact us @800-246-5497 for availability as our inventory changes rapidly. All calculated payments are an estimate only and do not constitute a commitment that financing or a specific interest rate or term is available.


text:
February 6, 2017
February 6, 2017
Edwin Valero

Action Images/Reuters/Danny Moloshok

Feedspot followFeedly follow

BEFORE he was a murderer, Edwin Valero was a boxer. And before he was a boxer, he was a boy, born in Venezuela on December 3, 1981 into a life of poverty and hard knocks that led to street fights and trouble with the police from a tender age. It was this shaky foundation that guided him to the prizefighting ring and from which that ring provided escape; it is likely in this harsh, angry soil that the seeds were sown that would ultimately erupt with shockingly violent finality.

Those early years, he would tell confidantes when he first arrived in the United States, were times of theft and motorcycle gangs, of finding an outlet for a tightly-coiled rage, a rage that seemingly never left him, even when he channeled it into the challenges of boxing.

“I saw him train about three times before I ever saw him spar, and I was immediately awed by him,” recalls Doug Fischer of The Ring, who was one of the first journalists to see the young super-featherweight in action shortly after he arrived at Joe Hernandez’s gym in Vernon, California in the spring of 2003. “The first time I saw him just train, just going through all the stations in this really cramped gym, and watching him skip rope and go from a double-end bag to a speed bag to a heavy bag and shadow-boxing, his intensity set him apart from most professional fighters that you saw. And then I saw him spar, and my God, he was having an easy time with guys he shouldn’t have been having an easy time with.”

Among those guys was Juan Lazcano, who in September of that year would annex the lightweight title from Stevie Johnston.

“Lazcano couldn’t hang with him,” says Fischer. “I think Lazcano sparred with him two or three times and decided he’d be better off at Joe Goossen’s gym in the valley sparring with [former and future world champion] Joel Casamayor.”

At the time that Valero was taking care of future world champions, he had fewer than eight full rounds of professional boxing under his belt: eight contests, each of which he had won inside three minutes. It was a record of ring rapidity that would continue when he began fighting in the States.

On July 19, 2003, Valero faced off against Emanuel Ford in Maywood, California. The result: a first-round stoppage. One month later, he took on Roque Cassiani; once again, the fight was stopped in Valero’s favour inside the first round. By the end of the year his record had grown to 12-0, the first-round knockout streak still in perfect shape, and the young fighter was on the verge of making his HBO debut.

But in January 2004, while the boxer was undergoing a routine medical in New York in advance of that HBO bout, an MRI revealed a small spot on his brain, a possible sign of cerebral hemorrhage.

“Oh that,” offered Valero nonchalantly. That was probably the result of a motorcycle crash he’d had in 2001, before he turned pro. No, he hadn’t been wearing a helmet.

With that, the New York State Athletic Commission promptly refused him a licence. And where New York went, the rest of the Association of Boxing Commissions went too. Valero’s fast-rising career was suddenly on hold, and as it remained on hold, he began to harbour doubts about those who were guiding it.

“He never gave up on himself or his own career, but he was frustrated with his promoter, which was the then-fledgling Golden Boy Promotions, and his manager, who was Oscar De La Hoya’s dad,” recalls Fischer. “And he thought these guys were powerful people in the sport, and he couldn’t understand why they couldn’t handle the situation, why they couldn’t get him reinstated, why they couldn’t hire the right people on the medical end or the legal end to work things out, and I know he began to get disillusioned at this point.”

In the multitude of reflections that followed the Valero story’s horrifying nadir, there were questions raised about that mark on his brain and the accident that may have been responsible for it. Could they have been responsible for his erratic, violent personality? Were they the ultimate cause of the events that would explode with shocking finality in April 2010? Perhaps so, but isolating an individual impact is difficult, when the elements that create each and every one of us are complex mixes of genetics and environment. In Valero’s case that mix also included the surroundings from which he came, the violence that was embedded in his nature almost as soon as he could walk or talk, and the fact that his chosen profession was one in which he not only dished out punishment with his fists but also received countless blows to his head in return.

All of those elements in concert may have made for a combustible brew, and all the more so given the accelerants that Valero at some point began adding to the ingredients, in the form of alcohol and cocaine.

Fourteen months after his licence was denied, realising his Stateside career was at a dead-end, Valero returned to Venezuela before moving to Japan, severing ties with Golden Boy and hooking up with Teiken Promotions. He became a road warrior, fighting on cards in Panama, Mexico and France, as well as Japan and his native land. He picked up where he had left off, scoring six more first-round knockouts, running his string to 18 in a row before, in March 2006, Genaro Trazancos – who would retire in 2012 with a pedestrian record of 22-16-1 – carved a place of sorts in boxing history by being the first to extend Valero into the second frame.

On August 5, 2006, Valero faced by far the biggest test of his career so far when he challenged Vicente Mosquera for the WBA super-featherweight title in Panama City. It looked at first as if Valero would win the title the way he had won those first 18 bouts when he decked Mosquera twice in the first three minutes. But Mosquera survived, and then he survived the second round too. In the third round, he even dropped Valero, who for the first time in his professional career found himself in a real dogfight. But he dug deep, eventually stopping the defending champ in the 10th round to claim his first world title belt.

Winning a world title might reasonably have been expected to bring some element of contentment and achievement to Valero’s life, not least given the obstacles he had encountered – from his underprivileged beginnings to his involuntary career hiatus – along the way. Instead, according to those who knew him, the always edgy Valero became, if anything, more sullen and less pleasant to be around.

Perhaps the most noticeable change, however, was not so much in Valero as in those around him, specifically his wife, Jennifer Carolina Viera. As Fischer notes, “After he won the title, I never saw her smile.” Something within Valero’s personality, if not exactly changing, was growing, and not for the better. Even back in California, Fischer remembers, Valero had his young wife “pretty much under lock and key. He had major jealousy issues.”

I met Valero on just one occasion, when he made his successful assault on a second world title, claiming a vacant WBC lightweight belt with a second-round stoppage of Antonio Pitalua in April 2009. I spoke no Spanish and he knew very little English, yet by the second or third day of fight week, he would greet me enthusiastically with a powerful handshake and hug. A few weeks later, I mentioned to a friend who worked for Teiken that I had met their former charge; “He seems like a nice guy,” I ventured. My friend responded with an instinctive grimace, as if I had just told him I liked to torture cats. Several years later, Top Rank president Bob Arum characteristically expressed his attitude toward Valero with greater bluntness.

“He was totally erratic,” Arum recalled recently. “He was kind of a nice guy, but then he could go off at any time. He wasn’t normal.”

Arum promoted Valero for the Pitalua bout, having found an accommodating American commission in the form of Texas, which was willing to grant the boxer a licence. Arum denies it now – “It was never a consideration,” he insists – but there was talk at the time of pitting the explosive Venezuelan against Manny Pacquiao, a fight Pacquiao trainer Freddie Roach embraced. “I’ve been thinking about it, and the number one contender in my mind right now is Edwin Valero,” he said in 2010. Two years earlier, he had noted that Valero “is a bit slow but he’s got a lot of power. He’s very dangerous.”

It was not to be. Valero’s behaviour became increasingly erratic. He raised eyebrows when he had the Venezuelan flag and a portrait of that country’s controversial president Hugo Chavez tattooed on his chest. Valero claimed that tattoo was the reason he was denied a visa to re-enter the States after the Pitalua fight; the official and more likely reason was that he was charged with driving under the influence while in Texas.

He fought twice more, defending his WBC title against Hector Velazquez in Venezuela and, in his final outing, against Antonio DeMarco in Mexico [below] , but outside the ring the warning signs were now flashing bright and red. In September 2009, he denied reports in his hometown of Merida that he had been hitting his wife and mother; in March the following year, one month after the DeMarco fight, Jennifer was admitted into hospital for injuries including a punctured lung and broken ribs – injuries that she asserted had been caused in a fall. Valero was arrested after appearing at the hospital where she had been admitted and threatening doctors and nurses; he subsequently argued with the arresting officer and forbade his wife from speaking with him.

Edwin Valero vs Antonio De Marco

After that incident, he was admitted to a psychiatric facility for treatment and observation, but was released on April 7, 2010. The Venezuelan government arranged for him to enter rehab in Cuba; two days later, on his way to the airport, a drunk Valero crashed his car and missed his flight. Now widely suspected of beating his wife regularly, he was assigned a police escort, but on April 17 he somehow managed to give them the slip and rented a van in which he drove with his wife to the city of Valencia, where that night the two of them checked into a room at the Hotel Intercontinental.

At 5.30 the following morning, Valero walked barefoot to the front desk and calmly announced that he had killed his wife. She had been stabbed to death.

He offered no resistance when he was arrested; concerned that he was presumably drunk or high and might be a suicide risk when he sobered up, police removed his shoelaces and jacket. But he was allowed to wear his sweat pants, and it was those that he used to hang himself in his prison cell sometime early in the morning of April 19, 2010. He was 28 years old.

My mind returns to that fight week in Texas. I was standing in the hotel lobby when Valero saw me, strode toward me and wrapped me in a bear hug. As he did so, I looked over his shoulder and saw Jennifer and their two young children crowded close together, focused on us and eyeing proceedings uncertainly. I thought at the time that they were shy: uncertain visitors to a foreign land whose language they did not speak. In hindsight, I wonder something else, whether what I saw as shyness was fear and the eyes that looked at us were making a silent, ultimately unanswered, plea for help.

Read more ON THIS DAY articles here


text:
Current Weather: View Cart (800) 765-0727

Breckenridge, Your Home Away From It All!

  • Last minute trip? Save up to 25% on last minute bookings

  • Summer of Savings! Take 15% off 3+ night stays, for the rest of the Summer!

  • Best in Breck Management! Sign up for your new rental management and get introductory rates, no additional fees, and free cleans!

Breckenridge Vacation Rentals by Resort Managers

Resort Managers has specialized in renting and managing Breckenridge rental homes and condos since 2008, and continues to be dedicated to delivering great vacations. From Breckenridge ski in ski out rentals, to luxury or secluded homes, each of our Breckenridge vacation rentals provides a unique experience to our guests. Take advantage of our new Advanced Search to find the Breckenridge lodging that’s right for you.

Breckenridge, Colorado has so much to offer. This historic mining town has become one of the premiere ski destinations in North America. The Breckenridge Ski Resort is one of the most visited and enjoyed, with more than 1 million ski visits each year, 155 runs, 2,400 acres, and 31 lifts. Breckenridge is also centrally located to several ski areas including, Keystone, Copper Mountain, Loveland, Vail, Ski Cooper, and several others. The proximity and free Summit Stage shuttle to many of these ski destinations makes it easy to see why we continue to be one of the most visited ski destinations in North America.

Besides Breckenridge's world class skiing, our winter activities include, ice skating at our indoor ice rink, dog sledding, Nordic skiing (cross country), Sledding, and snowmobiling, which makes Breckenridge a robust winter destination.

During the warmer months, Breckenridge comes alive with summer activities, and events. Experience rocky mountain majesty while navigating miles of bike trails, hiking through the endless national forest, rafting the many rivers, riding across the acres of high country, or simply relaxing in our Breckenridge rentals. Be sure to check out our Breckenridge events calendar, and signature events page to help plan your vacation.

If you have a different idea of adventure we have plenty for you as well. Downtown Breckenridge, Colorado consists of over 200 historic buildings and homes, 80 restaurants and bars, 180 varieties of shopping choices, 400 acres of parks and recreation areas. Our Breckenridge Concierge service can point you in the right direction. Main Street in Breck offers our visitors first class shopping, a myriad of delectable dining options and an electric nightlife in the setting of a historic 140 year old mining town. Enjoy the attractions at the newly remodeled pavilion, stroll along the river walk, visit the indoor ice arena, or take the kids to the recreation center for a swim. Whatever you need to take you away from it all, we have it here and Resort Managers can help you find the perfect Breckenridge lodging to get started with your vacation!

Resort Managers Rewards

Sign up for our guest rewards program today - your first 2,000 points are on us!

Tell me more

Get Exclusive Deals & Info

Be the first to hear about promotions, announcements, and more!

Popup AJAX modal.

Load external content here.

We have the technology. We can reuse this.


text:
Where to Next? Here's Where to Honeymoon After Your Destination Wedding

Published on December 2, 2015
Find Local Wedding Vendors
Browse the best wedding vendors in your area — from venues and photographers, to wedding planners, caterers, florists and more.
Powered by

Subscribe to the Magazine

Get a year of BRIDES, plus 2 free gifts!

Order Now


text:
The St. John and Tillard estate: Spital Square

Pages 55-73

Survey of London: Volume 27, Spitalfields and Mile End New Town. Originally published by London County Council, London, 1957.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by English Heritage. All rights reserved.

In this section

Spital Square

Spital Square was the nucleus of the St. John and Tillard estate; the Square formed a cruciform lay-out, but the whole of the eastern arm and much of the northern and western arms were demolished in the 1920's and 1930's. Fortunately a fairly comprehensive survey of the building was made about 1909, when the Square was still largely intact.

Spital Square was mainly a residential area. Most of the first occupants of Nos. 20–32 were described as weavers and in 1909 when the majority of the houses still survived it was found that silk waste had been used as packing in the floorboards of the houses, perhaps to deaden the sound of looms overhead. (fn. 19) The houses were not, however, constructed with the wide windows usual in premises occupied by working weavers and most of the houses were certainly occupied by silk merchants and master weavers, rather than by working weavers. In 1733, when the eastern arm of the Square was being built, Robert Seymour's edition of Stow's Survey of London re marked that ’in place of this hospital [St. Mary Spital], and near adjoining, are now built many handsome houses for merchants and others’. (fn. 20) In 1751 it was said that there were twelve coaches kept in Spital Square, two by weavers and the rest by silk merchants and brokers. (fn. 21) At least nine of the thirteen Spitalfields silk manufacturers who in 1828 resolved not to grant an advance of wages to weavers on strike lived in the Square. (fn. 22) Tallis described the Square in about 1838–9 as ’a small quadrangle consisting of respectable private residences and wholesale warehouses … mostly in the Silk trade’ (fn. 23) In 1842 it was described as mainly inhabited by silk manufacturers, ’the humble operatives living for the most part eastward of this spot’. (fn. 24) Nine of the fourteen trustees for the Norton Folgate almshouses in 1851 were residents in the Square. (fn. 25) The establishment of a girls’ school in the Square in 1891 probably indicates the end of its residential attractions but some measure of quiet was preserved until the 1914–18 war by its freedom from through-traffic.

In 1909 an old silk manufactory existed at the back of No. 32, then described as ’the only instance known in the Square of a separate building being erected for work apart from residences’ (fn. 19) There was also, however, a ’Warehouse or Workshop’ at the back of No. 27 in 1734. (fn. 26) A ’chenille manufactory’ existed here in the late nineteenth century and the passage to the industrial buildings at the back, although not marked on nineteenth-century maps, appears on Rocque and also in the 1909 photograph (Plate 59b). A ’factory’ was also built at the back of No. 26 between 1803 and 1812, (fn. 27) and factories were also mentioned in mid-nineteenth-century rate books at the back of Nos. 20, 21, 30 and 31. (fn. 28)

In the eighteenth century the seclusion and quiet of the Square was preserved, despite its proximity to Spitalfields Market and Bishopsgate Street. In 1775 an extra watchman was employed by the Liberty of Norton Folgate to being borne by James Dalbiac of No.20. The patrol the northern arm of the Square, the cost privacy of the Square was, however, chiefly maintained by the obstacles to through-traffic There was only a comparatively narrow entry, nineteen feet wide, from Bishopsgate Street, while bars or bollards at the northern and eastern ends of the Square prevented the entry of wheeled vehicles from Folgate Street and Lamb Street. The right of the lessee of No. 34/35 in 1742 to make a communication with Fort Street was limited to a footpassage blocked against wheeled traffic by posts: the other bollards in the Square were probably then also in place. In 1781–2 occupants of the Square complained that the posts on the pavement at the east end of the Square were too close together and that the bar, which presumably occupied the width of the carriageway, projected over the pavement. (fn. 29) In 1781 the Commissioners for paving the Old Artillery Ground claimed that the posts at the eastern arm of the Square stood on ground belonging to their liberty, (fn. 30) and apparently this was so as in 1789 the Norton Folgate Commissioners asked the Old Artillery Ground Commissioners either to narrow the eastern entrance ’so as to prevent any but foot passengers passing (as used formerly to be)’ or to allow the Norton Folgate Commissioners to do so at their own expense, they wishing ’to prevent danger to the inhabitants of Spital Square and Especially to Children from the driving of Cattle and Carts and Horses through the Opening in the Old Artillery Ground near the Grocers to said Spital Square’. The Old Artillery Ground Commissioners refused to comply with this request, and it was then suggested that the posts should be moved nearer ’the open part of the said Square’, but nothing was done. (fn. 31)

In 1821 James Tillard had new iron bollards placed at the eastern end of the Square, being thanked for his liberality by the Pavement Commissioners of the liberty, who at the same time carried the pavement across the roadway on the west side of the bollards. Mr. Tillard also placed iron bollards of similar design and an iron gate at the northern end of the Square. Those at the east end of the Square were marked ’J. Tillard 1821, Dodgson Fecit Shadwell London’ (fn. 32) (Plate 64b).

All these bollards, together with others at the north and south ends of Church Passage, survived until 1917, when those at the east end of the Square were removed by the Stepney Borough Council at the request and cost of Robert Horner, the lessee of Spitalfields Market, in order to relieve congestion in the neighbouring streets. Members of the Tillard family objected that this prejudicially affected their property but in July 1918 agreed with the Borough Council that they would waive their right to immediate replacement of the bollards, the Borough Council undertaking to replace them if required, meanwhile preserving the bollards in good repair. (fn. 33)

The provision of easier access to the extended market through the southern part of the Square was completed in 1929 by the widening of the western entrance to the Square from Bishopsgate Street from nineteen feet to forty-eight feet. The bollards and gate at the north end of the Square, opening on Folgate Street, were removed in 1931. (fn. 34)

In the 1918 agreement respecting the street bollards it was said that Spital Square ’was never a public thoroughfare except for foot passengers’, the property of the Tillard estate including the roadways. (fn. 35) The 1742 lease of No. 34/35 included the right to extend the southern arm of the Square: this southern arm is marked as a private road in a deed of 1889 (fn. 36) and was described as such when No. 33 was conveyed to the Corporation of London in 1923. (fn. 37) When the Pavement Commissioners for the liberty were constituted by the Act of 1778 (fn. 38) they petitioned for a new sewer in Spital Square to the Middlesex Commissioners of Sewers, who replied that they ’considered Spittal Square as Private Property’. (fn. 39) Obstructions of the streets and pavements were, however, occasions of presentment before the manorial court of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's in the mid-eighteenth century. In 1757 the occupant of No. 24 was presented for erecting posts before his house ’on the Common Highway to the great Nuisance of his Majesty's Subjects’. (fn. 40)

The houses on the north and south sides of the eastern arm of Spital Square, together with No. 21, were purchased between 1921 and 1927 by the Corporation of London under powers granted them for the extension of Spital fields Market, and pulled down to widen the street. The demolition of the south side was in progress in 1922. The demolition of the north side was completed by 1929. No. 21 was demolished in 1933. (fn. 41)

The houses on the north side of the western arm and the west side of the northern arm were, with the exception of No. 15, demolished in the early 1930's for the site of the Co-operative Wholesale Society Fruit Warehouse, built in 1935–6. (fn. 42) No. 15 was demolished in 1952 under a ’dangerous structure’ order. (fn. 43)

Nos. 1 and 2 Spital Square

These were not rebuilt in about 1700 like Nos. 4–9. In 1750 they appear to have been unoccupied. (fn. 19) In December 1751 James Tillard of Red Lion Square, esquire, granted a sixty-one-year lease of the site and old houses on it to John Brown of Norton Folgate, bricklayer. In July 1754 Brown assigned the lease and premises described as in 1751 to Richard Sparkes of Duke's Place, carpenter. The two new houses were probably built at this time and appear to have been occupied before the end of the year. (fn. 44)

There are no records of the appearance of No. 1, apparently a small house of no significance, but No. 2 is described as a plain brick-fronted house. A photograph of 1909 shows that it had a four-storeyed front with three rectangular windows to each upper storey and a block cornice below the attic windows. The best internal feature was the staircase, generally similar to those in Nos. 21–28, with turned balusters and columnnewels supporting a moulded handrail, and carved brackets against the cut strings.

No. 2 was occupied in 1758 and 1763 by Lewis Ogier, a flowered-silk weaver and trustee under the Local Act of 1759. (fn. 45)

No. 3 Spital Square

In 1750 and 1770 premises north of Nos. 1–2 on the west side of the yard between Nos. 2 and 4 were occupied by a ’Mr. John Canton’, who had been succeeded in 1773–4 by William Canton, who occupied the house in 1803. (fn. 44) John Canton was probably the scientist of that name (1718–72) who came to London in 1737 and is said to have ’articled himself for five years to a school-master in Spital Square, London, with whom he subsequently entered into partnership’. He was a notable early student of electricity, becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1749 and a member of the Council of the Society in 1751. His life was written by his son William for Rippis's Biographia Britannica. (fn. 46)

In 1809 the yard and premises at its upper end including a warehouse and a shop facing the yard were leased by William Tillard of Gloucester Street, Bloomsbury, esquire, for sixty-one years to Josh. Day and John Roberts, lead and glass merchants, as part of a plot of ground including No. 10 Norton Folgate High Street (see page 90) and Nos. 4–8 (even) Folgate Street (see page 74). Day and Roberts covenanted to build within seven years a ’third-rate dwelling house’ over the entry to the yard from Spital Square, (fn. 47) but this was not built. The premises in this yard, numbered 3 in the Square, continued to be occupied with No. 10 Norton Folgate throughout the nineteenth century. (fn. 19)

Nos. 4–9 (consec.) Spital Square

The architectural character of these houses (Plates 56, 99a), like that of No. 38, suggests construction in about 1700. It is known that the third Earl of Bolingbroke was granting leases to builders on the south side of Folgate Street in 1697 and 1704 (see page 74). Nos. 4–9 were terracehouses containing basements, three storeys, and garrets in the M-roof. The brick fronts of Nos. 4, 7, 8 and 9 were fairly uniform and typical of house design around 1700, having in each upper storey three equally spaced sash windows with flush frames, stone sills, and generally flat arches of gauged brick. Raised bandcourses of brick marked each floor level and the wall was carried up to form a high parapet with a narrow stone coping. This parapet probably replaced a wooden eaves-cornice similar to that which had survived at the back of the houses. The party walls were marked by narrow sunk panels, corresponding in height and form with the windows, and the angle of No. 4 was finished with long and short quoins. Nos. 7 and 8 had wooden doorcases of mid-eighteenth-century character, with Doric columns framing an arch and supporting an open triangular pediment. The fronts of Nos. 5 and 6 were rebuilt during the Regency period and presented imitation stone-coursed stucco faces containing two casement windows in each upper storey, the arched doorways having reeded surrounds. Both houses had trellis-patterned iron balconies at firstfloor level, and No. 5 had a good overthrow lampiron. These houses had dog-leg staircases with closed strings, square newels, and moulded handrails supported by turned balusters. The rooms generally were lined with moulded panelling in two heights with moulded chair-rails and boxcornices. The houses were demolished in the early 1930's to form the site of the Co-operative Wholesale Society Fruit Warehouse built in 1935–6.

No. 4 was occupied in 1750 and 1775 by John Vansommer, a gold and silver and flowered-silk weaver and a trustee under the Local Act of 1759. (fn. 45)

No. 5 was occupied in 1758 and 1761 together with No. 4. In 1812 and 1819 it was occupied by George Ferry, described in 1813 as Ferry and Wallen, surveyors, also of No. 17 (now No. 13) Elder Street. In 1817 ’Wallen and Ferry, surveyors and architects’ also appear at No. 22 Folgate Street. In 1813 Ferry and John Wallen reported on dilapidations to the Norton Folgate workhouse. (fn. 48) (For George Ferry and John Wallen see H. M. Colvin, A Biographical Dictionary of English Architects, 1954, and for John Wallen see also sub No. 11 Spital Square.)

No. 6 was occupied in 1727 and 1750 by Stevens Totton, a ’dealer in silk’ and one of the trustees of the Norton Folgate court house in 1744; (fn. 49) in 1758 and 1761 (together with No. 7) by Samuel Totton, silk broker and trustee under the Local Act of 1759. (fn. 45)

No. 7 was occupied in 1727 and 1731 by James Dalbiac, later occupant of No. 20 Spital Square; from 1758 to 1782 by Samuel Totton, silk broker. (fn. 19)

No. 8 was occupied in 1731 and 1761 by Simon Dalbiac, a trustee under the Local Act of 1759, (fn. 19) and from 1791 to 1808 was occupied by Doctor William Hawes (1736–1808), physician to the London Dispensary and founder of the Royal Humane Society. (fn. 50)

No. 9 was occupied in 1719 by Samuel Warner, an attorney; (fn. 51) in 1750 and 1775 by Lucy Dalbiac. (fn. 19)

Nos. 10–15 and 17–19 (consec.) Spital Square and Spital Square German Synagogue

Nos. 10–15 and the Synagogue demolished

Nos. 10–15 were built, together with Nos. 10–18 (even) Folgate Street, under a lease from Sir Isaac Tillard in about 1724. Rainwaterheads bearing the initials I.T. and the date 1724 were formerly on Nos. 12, 14 and 15 Spital Square and one still exists at No. 14 Folgate Street. They were probably built by the builder of Nos. 17–19 Spital Square (Plates 57, 58).

No. 10, on the north-west corner of the Square, was larger than the houses to the north and west of it, being rated at £70 in 1773–4 compared with ratings of £25 to £42 for Nos. 4–9 and 11–15. In 1884 Nos. 10 and 11 were leased by Philip Tillard to the President and Trustees of the German Synagogue, New Broad Street, (fn. 52) where the congregation had been established in 1858. The synagogue erected on the site of No. 10 and on part of that of No. 11 was of heavy Victorian Classical design, and was demolished, together with Nos. 11–14, in the early 1930's. The congrega- tion was amalgamated with the Poltava Synagogue, now in Heneage Street. (fn. 53)

Nos. 17–19 were built, together with Nos. 22–26 (even) Folgate Street, under a sixty-one-year lease granted by Sir Isaac Tillard to Jonathan Beaumont, mason, of London, on 15 April 1725. The plot leased abutted south on waste ground of Sir Isaac Tillard. On 5 August Beaumont assigned the lease, together with the six ’Substantiall Brick Messuages’ he had covenanted to build within a year of the lease, to William Goswell, carpenter, of Norton Folgate. (fn. 54) In December the lease was assigned by Goswell as a mortgate to secure £1,000 to John Oakey of Bethnal Green, esquire, William Fuller of the same, brewer, and Daniel Sudbury of Spitalfields, weaver, executors of Andrew Mayhew (fn. 55) to whom in July Goswell had mortgaged houses built by him on the north -west corner of Folgate Street and Elder Street. Apparently Goswell's mortgage was paid off by December 1726 when he assigned the lease to William Tillard, for a consideration of £1,900. (fn. 56)

Figure 10:

No. 15 Spital Square, 1725, ground-floor plan

No records of the original Nos. 10 and 11 are available beyond a ground-storey plan in the Middlesex Land Register for 1884, (fn. 52) made when the houses had already been considerably altered. Both appear to have been double-fronted, No. 10 having a return front of thirty-one feet to the west arm.

The uniform front of Nos. 10–15, on the west side of the north arm, was generally similar to that of Nos. 17–19, still standing on the east side, the only substantial difference being that the west range was of four storeys, including the attic above the main cornice, whereas the east range has a three-storeyed front and a mansard garret. Before the surviving houses are described, it is worth noting that Nos. 12 and 13 were single-fronted houses, three windows wide; No. 14 was four windows wide; and Nos. 10, 11 and 15 (figs. 10, 11) were double-fronted and five windows wide. The doorcases were generally similar to those of the east range houses except for No. 15 where the ground storey had been faced with stucco, horizontally channelled to resemble stonework, with moulded architraves to the window openings, and the original doorcase had been replaced by one of Adamasque character, with Ionic pilasters supporting a frieze and cornice (fig. 12). Nos. 11–14 were demolished in the early 1930's to make way for the Co-operative Wholesale Society Fruit Warehouse, but No. 15 survived until 1952.

No. 17 is double-fronted and five windows wide, but only one room deep, whereas Nos. 18 and 19 are single-fronted, three windows wide, and two rooms deep. The houses share a three-storeyed front of brown stock brick, red brick being used for the jambs and segmental arches of the grouped windows, which are furnished with moulded flush frames containing sashes with slender glazing bars, the heads of the frames and top sashes conforming to the curve of the brick arches. The front is finished with a moulded brick cornice of slight projection, surmounted by a brick paraped with a narrow stone coping. Each house has a wooden doorcase composed of V-jointed rusticated Doric pilasters supporting an entablature that has a triglyphed frieze and a dentilled cornice. The doors generally have six panels, and an ornamental fanlight of later date survives at No. 17 (Plate 81c). These houses have disappointing interiors, the rooms being lined with ovolo-moulded or rebated panelling of an ordinary standard. The staircases have closed moulded strings and moulded straight handrails supported by column-newels and turned balusters of simple profile.

No. 10 was occupied in 1727 and 1731 by John Lekeux, gentleman, who witnessed many deeds relating to neighbouring properties, and was probably a lawyer; (fn. 19) and in 1758 and 1805 by Stevens Totton, a mercer who described himself as ’secretary to the Gentlemen of the Liberty’ and concerned himself with the drainage of the Square (see page 19). He was a deacon of the French Church in Threadneedle Street in 1762 and a witness of Sir Benjamin Truman's will in 1779.

Figure 11:

No. 15 Spital Square, 1725, front elevation

No. 11 was occupied in 1740 and 1750 by J. A. Merle, an ’African director and merchant’; (fn. 57) in 1831 and 1856 by John Wallen, (fn. 58) probably the architect of St. Mary Spital Square Schools (see page 104) who in 1847 reported on the Norton Folgate almshouses. In 1813 John Wallen produced, as a partner of George Ferry, a plan for the repair of Norton Folgate workhouse, and in 1836 Messrs. Wallen and Beatson superintended the repairs of Christ Church, Spitalfields (see page 167). In 1837 a Mr. Wallen was asked to survey Spitalfields workhouse and also to survey the rateable property in Norton Folgate, but this may have been John's brother, William, who is said to have been of Spital Square. (fn. 58)

Figure 12:

No. 15 Spital Square, 1725, doorcase

No. 12 was occupied in 1803 and 1825 by Samuel Fearn, a stockbroker and trustee under the Local Act of 1810. (fn. 59)

No. 17 was occupied in 1781–2 and 1790 by Charles De St. Leu, a stockbroker and trustee under the Local Act of 1810, described in 1813 as of ’the Rotundo Bank or Tom's Cornhill’. (fn. 60)

No. 19 was occupied in 1803 and 1819 by Charles De St. Leu.

Nos. 20–28 (consec.) Spital Square

Nos. 21–28 demolished

The construction of the Square south of No. 19 and of the eastern arm of the Square appears to have depended on the acquisition of land from Sir George Wheler and others. This ground measured 105 feet by 205 feet (the orientation of these dimensions is not certain), and formed an ’oblong square’: this purchase was made between 1717 and 1727 and may have been made in 1719 (see page 47). It included the site of Nos. 20— 28. The reservation of ’so much of the south side thereof to be left to the open street as shall make the present public Passage, now about ten Foot wide, to be thirty Foot wide’, (fn. 61) indicates its location north of the eastern arm of Spital Square, the widening of which to the dimensions of Lamb Street evidently dates from this time.

William Goswell, the most active builder on the Tillard estate, was responsible for the building of Nos. 21–27 and Nos. 30—32; he probably also built No. 20. Together these houses represented the best group of domestic buildings in the Spital-fields area. Only No. 20 survives.

No record of the building lease of No. 20 (Plates 59a, 83, 89b, 103b, figs. 13–15) is known to exist but it was occupied in March 1732/3 by James Dalbiac, its first occupant, whose coach-house and stable are then mentioned. (fn. 62) In 1731 a James Dalbiac occupied No. 7 (fn. 19) and No. 20 was probably erected in the following year. James Dalbiac was a weaver, a trustee for the Norton Folgate court house in 1744 (fn. 63) and a trustee under the Local Act of 1759. As ’Captain James Dalbiac’ he undertook in 1745 to raise a body of eighty of his workmen to resist the Young Pretender. (fn. 64) The occupants in 1763 were James and Charles Dalbiac, makers of silk and velvet. (fn. 65) In 1775 Mr. James Dalbiac agreed to pay for an extra watchman to be employed by the liberty to patrol the northern arm of the Square. (fn. 66) A James Dalbiac continued in occupation until 1779. In 1790 the occupant was D. Giles, (fn. 28) probably the Daniel Giles of Giles and Bottalin of Old South Sea House, Broad Street, merchants, mentioned in London directories at this period. (fn. 67) He was probably related to the Daniel Giles, silk broker, who occupied No. 36 Crispin Street in 1750 and 1759 and No. 25 Spital Square in 1761 and 1766. (fn. 28) During the period between 1781–2 and 1812 the rateable value of No. 20 rose appreciably above those of the other houses built in 1732–3, rising to £100 compared with about £60 or £70 for Nos. 21–27. It was perhaps during Giles's tenure that the ground- and first-floor interiors were embellished, the imposing entrance-hall formed and the lower part of the exterior reconstructed to include a large doorway with Coade stone surround.

Figure 13:

No. 20 Spital Square, ?1732, front elevation

Figure 14:

No. 20 Spital Square, ?1732, section

In 1803 the house was occupied by Benjamin Goldsmid and in 1812 and 1819 by J. L. Goldsmid. (fn. 28) In 1805–7, 1813 and 1818 it was also occupied by Isaac Lyon Goldsmid. (fn. 68) Benjamin Goldsmid was probably the prominent financier and stockbroker who, with his brother Abraham, had an office in Whitechapel and, later, in Capel Court, and who committed suicide in 1808. He had a son, J. L. Goldsmid; and Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, a broker, who was later the owner of Spital-fields Market and a noted philanthropist and worker for the cause of Jewish emancipation, was his nephew. (fn. 46)

In 1825 the house was empty. In 1831 it was rated for ’house and factory’: the addition of this building at the back had perhaps been partly responsible for the rise in rating between 1781–2 and 1812.

In 1831 the house and the factory were occupied by a William Emerson. (fn. 28) In the same year they were occupied by Alexander Duff and Co., silk manufacturers, described as Duff and Peacock in 1844. (fn. 69) In 1845 and 1850 the occupants were Boyd and Harmer and in 1853 and until 1894 Thomas Kemp and Son, both silk manufacturers. From at least 1865 Kemp and Son also occupied No. 21. (fn. 70) In 1896 and 1900 the occupant was a waterproof-clothing maker and in 1909 a cap-maker. (fn. 71) It is now occupied by wholesale tobacconists. In 1873 there was a fountain in the back garden: (fn. 72) this perhaps dated from the occupation by Giles or the Goldsmids.

No. 20 was designed on a far more generous scale than the preceding houses (Plate 59a, figs. 13–15). It has a frontage of forty feet and a depth of thirty-five feet six inches, with a large garden at the back, now almost built over. The interior is simply planned, with the spacious hall lying to the left of a large front room and leading to a staircase compartment between two rooms, almost equal in size, at the back. It is surprising to find no secondary or service stair in a house of this size.

Figure 15:

No. 20 Spital Square, ?1732, ground- and first-floor plans

The lower part of the house was extensively remodelled around 1790, the basement and ground storey being refronted with yellow stock brick. This accounts for the marked difference in scale and style between the lower and upper stages of the front elevation. The imposing doorway (Plate 83), now partially obscured by two iron grilles, dominates the plain ground storey, with its arch-headed opening formed of brick dressed with vermiculated blocks, guilloche impost-blocks, and a triple keystone ornamented with a bearded male mask, all of Coade stone. The six-panelled door of oak is framed by narrow pilasters with panels containing bell-flower pendants, and flanked by narrow side lights. The impost lines are continued by a wooden transom enriched with fluting between circular paterae, and the arch lunette is filled with a handsome fanlight frame of radial pattern, in iron and lead. The narrow wall-face left of the doorway contains a passage entry, and the wide face to the right has two large windows, with stone sills and flat arches of gauged brick-work. The sashes, with slender glazing bars, are recessed within stuccoed reveals. The ground storey is finished with a frieze band of guilloche ornament and a delicately moulded cornice, also of Coade stone.

The upper part of the front is original, with a brown brick face containing two storeys of five evenly spaced windows, with stone sills and triple keystones, and red brick jambs and segmental arches. The moulded window frames are recessed with stuccoed reveals and contain sashes with slender glazing bars, the heads of the frames and top sashes being curved to conform with the brick arches. Below the parapet, which has a narrow stone coping, runs a dentilled cornice of stone, returned at each end against the brick face. There are three segmental-headed dormers evenly spaced in the front face of the mansard roof. The front area is guarded by handsome railings of wrought iron, with ornamental panels at intervals and, on the right of the doorway, the remains of a lamp-iron. This ironwork dates from the reconstruction carried out in the 1790's.

The late eighteenth-century entrance-hall (Plate 89b) is the most important and least-changed internal feature. Each side wall con-tains a six-panelled door of oak (that on the north wall being a blind respond) placed centrally in a lunette-headed bay of equal width with the hall. The wall-faces flanking the bay project slightly, forming wide piers linked to their opposites by arched soffits, springing from moulded imposts enriched with husk festoons and oval paterae over a guilloche band. These imposts continue across each lunette-headed bay and form the heads of the door architraves, the jambs being of similar profile but having the enrichment of a repeated motif of formalized lilies rising from a vase at the base. Over each door is a fan-shaped motif of formal leaves and palmette sprays. The arched soffits linking the wide piers have three moulded panels, the middle one containing an acanthus boss and the others a motif composed of a vase with scrolls and olive sprays. The square central compartment is ceiled with a flat circular panel and shaped spandrels. The circular panel has a central acanthus boss and a guilloche border, and each spandrel is decorated with a circular patera and a border moulding of wreathed reeding. Between the hall and the staircase compartment is a screen formed by a wide arch rising from plain-shafted Corinthian columns which have half-column responds on the side walls. The imposts continue those of the side walls, the archivolt is moulded, and the arch soffit is ornamented with a double guilloche band.

The staircase, up to the second-floor landing, was remodelled around 1790, but the fine orna-mental standards of wrought iron have been re-placed with square-section balusters. The mahogany-veneered handrail survives minus its curtail. The first-floor rooms retain the original panelling, but the enriched plaster cornices and six-panelled doors belong to the later period. These rooms contained unusual chimneypieces with enriched mouldings framing copper panels, those on the pilaster and frieze painted with jasmine vines and festoons, and the oval medallions above the pilasters with figure subjects (Plate 103b). The crude way in which an arched opening has been cut through the panelling between the two front rooms suggests that the walls were hung with silk or paper in the late eighteenth-century redecoration.

Building leases of the sites of Nos. 21–27 for seventy-one years were granted by Sir Isaac Tillard's brother William to William Goswell on 20 March 1732/3. (fn. 73) The houses were evidently erected in the same year, as a rainwater-head between Nos. 24 and 25 bore the date 1733. (fn. 19) An assignment of No. 27 in 1734 was witnessed by Marmaduke Smith of Christ Church, Spital-fields, gentleman, probably the carpenter of Princelet Street, who built No. 4/6 Fournier Street. (fn. 74)

There is no documentary evidence of the building of No. 28 but in March 1732/3 and July 1733 its site was occupied by Thomas Miller, silk thrower. (fn. 75) The house appears to have been rebuilt in the late nineteenth century; nothing else is known about it.

The first occupant of No. 21, to whom the lease was assigned in May 1735, was John Anthony Rocher of Hackney, weaver. (fn. 76) In 1745 the lease was assigned by a banker, with the consent of the assignees under a commission of bank-ruptcy awarded against J. A. Rocher, Peter Lapierre and Samuel Rocher, merchants and partners, to Daniel Mesman of Spitalfields, weaver, (fn. 77) who in that year undertook to raise forty-eight workmen against the Young Pretender. (fn. 64) Mesman and others of the same name, black silk and velvet weavers, retained possession until at least 1814–15. (fn. 19)

The lease of the corner house, No. 22, was assigned in May 1734 as a mortgage to secure £600 plus interest, by William Goswell to Andrew Hope of Norton Folgate, brewer (fn. 78) (page 80). In January 1736/7 the lease was assigned by Hope and Goswell to James King of Spital Square, weaver, (fn. 79) who in 1741 occupied both No. 22 and No. 23. (fn. 19)

The lease of No. 23 was assigned in March 1733/4 as a mortgage to secure £262 10s. by Goswell to Robert Norris of Shoreditch, vic-tualler. (fn. 80) The lease was evidently assigned sub-sequently to James King.

The leases of Nos. 24, 25 and 26 were assigned in December 1734 as a mortgage to secure £840 by Goswell to John Winn of Norton Folgate, stable-keeper, whose stables were in Folgate Street. (fn. 81) The first of these houses whose lease was assigned to an occupant appears to have been No. 26, the lease of which was assigned in June 1736 by Winn and Goswell to John Gastineau of Dartmouth, Devon, weaver. (fn. 82)

In December of the same year Winn and Goswell assigned No. 25 to Peter James Douxsaint of Spitalfields, merchant, (fn. 83) who still occupied the house in 1758. (fn. 19) He was evidently responsible for the embellishment of the interior with fine wood carvings and plasterwork.

In April 1739 Winn and Goswell assigned No. 24 to Matthew Parroissien of the Old Artillery Ground, weaver. (fn. 84) It appears, however, that by 1741 No. 24 was occupied by Abraham Ogier. T. A. Ogier, a weaver and a trustee under the Norton Folgate Local Act of 1759, occupied the house in 1758 and 1770. (fn. 85) In 1741 Parroissien appears as the occupant of No. 26. (fn. 19)

The lease of No. 27 was assigned in September 1734 by Goswell to John Pincock of Shoreditch, gentleman, (fn. 74) who was included, as a sail-cloth maker, of Spital Square, in a list of Eminent Merchants and Traders in London in 1740. (fn. 86)

The fronts of Nos. 21–27 were architecturally uniform, although the houses different in size (Plates 56, 58, 59b). No. 21 was five windows wide, with a central doorway; No. 22, the corner house, and Nos. 23 and 27 were four windows wide, with their doorways placed off centre; and Nos. 24, 25 and 26 were three windows wide, with their doorways on the left. The fronts of brown brick contained four storeys of windows, having stone sills and red brick jambs and seg-mental arches, those of the first and second storeys with triple keystones, and those of the third storey with single keystones. The return front of No. 22 alone varied this pattern with its large arch-headed staircase window flanked by blind window recesses, one to each storey. A simple moulded stone cornice underlined the attic storey, where the windows were without keystones, and a parapet coping of stone finished the front. Each house had a wooden doorcase of simple but elegant design, the opening containing the six-panelled door and fanlight being framed by a straight-headed Classical architrave, flanked by plain jambs with enriched upright consoles supporting the cornice-hood. At No. 25, however, the architrave framed a rusticated arch with moulded imposts and a lion-mask keyblock. The windows had segmental-headed top sashes and the partly exposed frames were recessed within shallow reveals.

All these houses were well finished internally, with fine staircases and rooms lined with moulded or fielded panelling. The staircase of No. 21 was fairly typical of the rest, having shaped brackets to the cut strings, and moulded handrails ramped over the Doric column-newels. The balusters, with turned and twisted shafts, were spaced two to each tread. The north front room on the first floor of this house had a charming ceiling of Rococo plasterwork, with a central circle of floral garlands and pendants surrounding a putto seated on a rocaille scroll and holding a garland. Diagonally placed motifs, and an enriched border introducing female heads, completed the design (Plate 107). No. 22 had a staircase constructed round an oblong well, beginning with a short flight of segmental-curved steps (Plate 94d). The balus-trade was of mahogany and generally similar to that of the staircase at No. 21, except that the brackets to the cut strings were enriched with carving.

No. 25, though outwardly little different from the other single-fronted houses on the north side of the east arm, was remarkable for the wealth of carved woodwork and Rococo plasterwork decorating its entrance-hall, staircase, and first-floor front room. The narrow hall was lined with raised-and-fielded panels in two heights, set in ovolo-moulded framing, with a moulded chair-rail and a dentilled cornice having three enriched members. A square-headed quadrant architrave, carved with scallops and darts, framed the arched entrance doorway, each spandrel being adorned with a finely carved winged cherub's head. Above the arch was a cartouche of elaborate Rococo form (Plate 88d). In each side wall was a doorway, that on the party wall being a decorative respond, with a six-panelled door framed by a moulded archi-trave and surmounted by a frieze ornament of carved foliage branching from a portrait medallion, and an angular pediment with two enriched mem-bers (Plate 97a). The staircase was of the usual dog-leg type, its moulded mahogany handrail resting on fluted newel-columns and turned balusters, with fluted and twisted shafts arranged alternately, these, with the carved scroll brackets against the cut strings, being of deal (fig. 17). The staircase walls were panelled and the cornice carved to accord with those of the hall (Plate 97b). The soffit of the first-floor landing beam had a sunk panel containing carved foliage centred on a high-relief flower, perhaps a water lily. The beam was supported by consoles carved with cartouches framing male and female masks, these consoles resting in turn on Doric pilasters with fluted shafts and enriched capitals. The plastered soffits of the staircase flights and the ceilings over the ground- and first-floor landings were decorated with enriched mouldings to form panels containing compositions of Rococo and naturalistic ornaments, perhaps the most charming being the panel over the first-floor landing, with its incurved corners and Rococo shells, and within the panel a flying cherub holding a wreath, surrounded by foliage and rocaille ornaments (Plates 105, 106b, d). In each wall of the landing was a door-way, framed by an enriched architrave. The door-way to the front room had a carved frieze of foliage and rocaille scrolls centred on a female bust, and an angular pediment with three enriched members. The side doorways, one being a decorative respond, had similar architraves but the friezes were carved with formal acanthus leaves centred on Aurora masks, and the cornices were not pedimented (Plate 96a). The first-floor front room was also lined with raised-and-fielded panelling; the chair-rail was enriched with carving and a fret-band, and the dentilled cornice had its cymatum carved with acanthus (Plate 92b). The doorway was dressed with an enriched architrave, carved frieze and triangular pediment, and the doors of the cupboards flanking the Regency marble chimneypiece had carved ovolo architraves. The most striking feature of this room was the ceiling of modelled and cast plaster, dominated by a large circular panel in high relief, portraying the myth of 10, transformed into a heifer and watched over by Canopus, who is lulled to sleep by Hermes piping while Jupiter descends in the guise of an eagle (Plate 104). This panel, flanked by Rococo flourishes, was framed by a moulding forming a quatrefoil with flat lobes. Each spandrel panel contained a relief decoration of a cherub against a ground of rocaille shells and scrolls.

Figure 16:

No. 25 Spital Square, 1733, first-floor plan

Figure 17:

No. 25 Small Square, 1733, detail of staircase balustrade

All these houses (except No. 20) were acquired and demolished by the Corporation of London in connexion with the extension of Spitalfields Market. Nos. 23–27 were demolished in 1927–1928, the vendor of No. 25 retaining the ’panelling, staircase and woodcarving’ which were sub-sequently sold to Osborne & Co. (Contractors), Ltd., and the panelling and woodcarving of the other houses being sold by the Corporation to Miss E. Friend. No. 21 was demolished in 1933. Offers were invited for the panelling ’but with poor result’ and it was removed by the demolition contractors, Messrs. Goodman Price Ltd. (fn. 87)

Nos. 30–32 (consec.) Spital Square

These three houses were also built by William Goswell, probably in about 1739, under a lease from William Tillard. No. 30 was assigned by Tillard and Goswell to its occupant in July 1739, and No. 32 in May 1740. (fn. 88) The basement of No. 32 contained in the late nineteenth century a lead cistern bearing the date 1739 and the initials of the first occupant. The assignment of this house was witnessed by Samuel Worrall, the most active of Spitalfields builders.

No. 30 was assigned in 1739 to Giles Biget of Steward Street, weaver: in April 1741 Giles assigned the lease to his son Peter, also a weaver, who in May re-assigned it to his father. (fn. 89) Peter Biget or Biggott occurs as occupant in 1741 and 1750. In 1744 ’Bigot and Delavau’ of Spital Yard were included among Eminent Merchants and Traders in and about London , (fn. 57) and in 1745 they undertook to raise a body of thirty of their workmen to resist the Young Pretender. (fn. 64) In 1761 and in 1781–2 the house was occupied by James Fosket, a worsted stuff weaver, and also described as an ’orchelmaker, refiner of salt-petre and weaver’. (fn. 45)

No. 32 was leased in 1740 to Joseph Green of Fort Street, weaver, a trustee under the Local Act of 1759. (fn. 90) Elizabeth or Joseph Green appear as occupants until at least 1761. (fn. 19) They under-took to raise a body of thirty-two of their work-men in 1745. (fn. 64)

Nos. 30, 31 and 32 were four–storeyed houses with uniform fronts, the first two having four windows in each upper storey and the last having three. Each house had a fine wooden doorcase (Plate 80c), with a rusticated arch framed by plain-shafted Ionic three-quarter columns supporting a triangular-pedimented entablature, having a pulvinated frieze and a modillioned cornice. The rusticated arch had moulded imposts and a lion-mask keyblock, and the deep reveal framed a six-panelled door and fanlight. In all other details the fronts were similar to those of Nos. 21–27.

The interior of No. 30 must have been at least as fine as any in the Square. The handsome two-storeyed staircase compartment had an enriched compartmented ceiling and plastered walls with, presumably, painted decoration. The staircase of generous width rose in two flights to stop at the first-floor landing (Plate 87a). Its details appear to have been similar to those of the staircase at No. 25. The rooms were lined with fielded panels set in moulded framing, with moulded chair-rails and enriched cornices, and the doors were framed by eared architraves finished with frieze and cornice, sometimes pedimented, which, with the ovolo architraves of the windows, were enriched with carving (Plate 87b). There were at least four handsome chimneypieces of carved wood (Plates 100, 101), which, with a length of carved cornice and two Corinthian pilasters (probably from the entrance-hall) were re-used in Pelham House, the late nineteenth-century hostel that replaced No. 30 (see below). Two of the chimneypieces were of the continued type, broadly Palladian in design, the more elaborate having a bracketed cornice-shelf supported by child-headed termini, flanked by inverted scroll consoles. The upper stage contained a plain panel with a gad-rooned frame, flanked by short pilasters that were adorned with floral pendants and supported a broken triangular pediment. The other continued chimneypiece had an enriched ovolo-moulded architrave framing the chimney-opening, the angles being eared and shouldered to include a frieze ornamented with a female mask between floral festoons. The jambs were flanked by child-headed inverted consoles, and mask-fronted brackets supported the cornice-shelf. The upper stage consisted of a plain field, probably for a painting, flanked by fluted Corinthian columns supporting an enriched entablature and a broken triangular pediment. Another chimneypiece, probably based on a Batty Langley design, had an enriched ovolo-moulded architrave, eared and surmounted by an open triangular pediment resting on acanthus brackets. The deep tympanum contained an oval medallion carved in high relief with a female portrait-bust. No. 32 had a fine open-well staircase (Plate 95c, 95d), similar in details to that in No. 25, but the unique feature of this house was the large silk factory adjoining at the back, with a plain front containing four storeys of nine segmental-headed windows.

From 1870 No. 30 was partly used under the name of Pelham House as a Home for Working Boys by a body founded in that year by Samuel Morley and others, to provide better accommodation than the common lodging houses. (fn. 91) No. 14 Fournier Street was similarly used by the same organization, under the name of Howard House. Other homes were maintained at Maida Vale, Bloomsbury, Chelsea, Blackfriars Road and Fleet Street. In 1892 the original house was pulled down and rebuilt, the architect being W. H. Seth-Smith of Lincoln's Inn, who in 1908 was a member of the committee of the organization. (fn. 92) Four of the original chimneypieces were retained. No. 30 and the adjoining houses were demolished by the Corporation of London in 1922, when the four chimneypieces were sold to Messrs. Robersons. (fn. 93)

No. 33 Spital Square

The southern arm of the Square was constructed across part of the garden of the Tillards' house (No. 34/35) but never fully completed. In October 1742, when William Tillard granted a lease of the house, the ground east of its garden, which in 1711–12 had stretched east to the liberty boundary, was described as ’lately designed for a street’ and the lessee was given leave ’to make a common passage between the same and the Artillery Ground southwards thereof if he or they can procure the same, setting up and continuing posts therein in such manner as to prevent Wheel Carriages passing through the same’. (fn. 94) Rocque's map of 1746 shows this arm extending to the southern boundary of the liberty, but no communication with Fort Street was opened.

No. 33 was built south of the former Tillard house between 1770 and 1773. (fn. 19) No record of its appearance has survived. The first occupant was Thomas Killner, a silk throwster. (fn. 95) The house was occupied in 1790 and 1831 by James Collins, solicitor. (fn. 96)

Nos. 34 and 35 Spital Square

Formerly No. 34 Spital Square. The seventeenth-century house occupying this site was known as Spital House

There is no early documentary evidence of the architectural history of this house, occupied by the Earl of Bolingbroke and then by the Tillards and later divided into two houses to form Nos. 34–35 Spital Square. It appears in plan on Ogilby and Morgan's map of 1677, and in elevation on their map of 1681–2 (Plate 2) and on an early eighteenth-century plan of the parish of St. Botolph Bishopsgate and the Liberty of Norton Folgate. At this time the house apparently faced south with an irregular-shaped garden or court behind it stretching some 140 feet north-ward. The elevation sketchily delineated on these maps, presumably the south front, suggests an Elizabethan or Jacobean house of considerable size, four storeys high and seven bays wide. The second and sixth bays projected for two storeys, and the middle one for three, all being finished with crested balconies. But whereas the parish map shows a top storey with five windows and a cornice coping, Ogilby and Morgan show two pedimented semi-dormer windows centred over the side bays and a cartouche over the middle one.

The hearth tax assessments for 1662–4 include a house in ’Spittle Yard’ occupied by Lady Elizabeth St. John assessed for eight hearths: this was not the largest number of hearths contained by houses in the yard and seems too small for the apparent size of the house as shown in elevation. (fn. 97) The assessments for 1674–5 include a similar return for a house of Lady St. John's with eight hearths. Juxtaposed to this is the entry ’Empty. Lady St. John's owner 60.’ It is difficult to believe that Spital Yard contained a house possessing sixty hearths; sixty is perhaps a clerk's aural error for sixteen. (fn. 98)

The house appears on the ’New Church’ maps of 1711–12 with a block plan different from that of 1677 but identical with that indicated on a deed of 1882 (fn. 36) after it had been divided into two (fig. 18). The plan of 1882 and Horwood's map make it evident that the house was reconstructed or rebuilt between 1681–2 and 1711–12, after which it faced east on to a garden. Two of the plans of 1711–12 appear, however, to show a small extension on the north side which may represent the porch of a side-door opening directly on to the Square.

Figure 18:

Nos. 34 and 35 Spital Square, reconstruction of ground-floor plan, based on a lease of 1882

The reconstructed or rebuilt house might be that crudely represented on Jeffery's map of 1735 as a two-storeyed house with a high-pitched roof. The ground-floor plan, however, is quite clearly shown on the deed of 1882, albeit in the much altered state consequent on division into two houses, then numbered 34 and 35 Spital Square. The house was approximately U-shaped and the entrance front faced east, at a right angle to the west arm of the Square. The front range, five windows wide, contained the hall between two rooms. Behind these were ante-rooms and closets, and two more rooms facing north and south. Between these back rooms was, presumably, the staircase. A large yard south of the house contained the stables and coach-houses.

Before the construction of the southern arm of the Square the garden of the rebuilt house stretched to the eastern border of the liberty: subsequently it was bounded on the east by this roadway. The house was described in August 1711 as ’that Capitall Messuage or Chieff Man sion house then in the occupation of the said [third] Earle’. (fn. 99) It was occupied by (Sir) Isaac Tillard who died there in May 1726, (fn. 7) and then by his brother William, probably until about 1741 when it was occupied by John Davy (fn. 19) to whom, described as of Christ Church, Spitalfields, silk thrower, William Tillard leased the house with its garden, coach-house, stable and yard in 1742 for ninety-nine years at a rent of £80 per annum. (fn. 100) John Davy was included in 1744 in a list of Eminent Merchants and Traders in and about London (fn. 86) and in 1763 was described as a silk merchant. (fn. 65) He was a trustee under the Norton Folgate Local Act of 1759. At this time the house was numbered 34.

Between 1763 and 1770 Davy was succeeded by T. and W. Ravenhill, merchants. (fn. 101) In 1778–1779 the Ravenhills were succeeded by Michael Pearson, (fn. 102) an apothecary. Between 1805–7 and 1812 Pearson was succeeded by Michael Sampson who does not occur in lists of merchants or tradesmen. In 1824 Sampson was succeeded by Abraham Samuda, colonial broker and father of Joseph Samuda, engineer and shipbuilder. (fn. 46) Samuda remained in occupation until 1844. (fn. 71) From about 1830, however, the house was divided into two or more premises and henceforward was numbered 34 (occupied by Samuda) and 35, the former Nos. 35, 36 and 37 being numbered 36, 37 and 38 respectively. From 1831 to 1837 No. 35 was occupied by T. A. Gibson & Co. and from 1840 by Stone and Kemp, both firms being silk manufacturers. (fn. n1) From 1841 to 1843 No. 34 was also occupied by a woolstapler and No. 35 by an umbrella-maker and carman. From 1845 to 1865 Stone and Kemp occupied both Nos. 34 and 35. From 1869 the premises were occupied by wholesale baby-linen manufacturers. (fn. 103) In 1882 Philip Tillard leased the house, as Nos. 34 and 35, to Charles Kuypers, merchant, when a plan of the house and garden was drawn (fn. 36) (fig. 18). No. 34 was described as lately used as a dwelling-house only and No. 35 as a warehouse, the two communicating at groundand top-floor levels. No. 34 was described as having no first-floor rooms but this is probably a mistake for No. 35. In 1889 the Rev. James Tillard conveyed property including the house and the planted garden which then still survived on its east side to the Great Eastern Railway Company who in the following year conveyed it to the parish of St. Botolph Bishopsgate, to be cleared for the building of the Central Foundation School for Girls.

The Central Foundation School for Girls

This school originated as a free charity school for boys and girls established on a permanent footing in St. Botolph Bishopsgate parish in about 1726, being endowed in that year with two houses in the part of Artillery Lane within the parish, where the school may have been held. In 1819 the Charity Commissioners reported that the parochial charity school of St. Botolph Bishopsgate had existed since 1702: this was probably the school endowed in 1726. (fn. 104) The school was subsequently described as a ward school, the Aldermen and Councillors of the ward being among the trustees in 1732. In 1816 property in Peter Street was acquired on which a new school was built by 1821. In about 1870 these premises were acquired by the Great Eastern Railway Company under statutory powers and the school moved to premises in Primrose Street acquired in 1871.

In 1873 the school was united with the school of the St. Ethelburga's Society founded about 1719 by inhabitants of that parish, previously situated in Cavendish Court, Bishopsgate.

In 1887 the schools contained 150 boys and 280 girls. In that year the buildings in Primrose Street were acquired by the Great Eastern Railway Company under the Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Act, 1887. (fn. 105)

Under the provisions of the Act of 1887 the Great Eastern Railway Company was obliged to provide other accommodation for the school and in May 1889 purchased for £19,500 from the Rev. James Tillard and mortgagees a site on the south side of Spital Square including Nos. 33 and 33½ with stabling, and Nos. 34 and 35 with a garden and stabling. (fn. 36) By a deed of June 1889 the rector of St. Botolph Bishopsgate, the trustees of the parish estates, and the trustees of Bishopsgate ward schools agreed to accept this land ’as the site for the erection of the New School, Chapel, Curate's residence and Ward Schools’, which was conveyed by the Company to the rector and trustees in March 1890. (fn. 36) The site for the school was described by the Charity Commissioners as containing 1,196 square yards. (fn. 105)

By a scheme established by the Charity Commissioners in April 1890 the boys' school was transferred from Primrose Street to the Middle Class School in Cowper Street and a school for girls and infants only was established in Spital Square. (fn. 105) The girls' school was in the meantime accommodated in Whitfield's Tabernacle. (fn. 106)

By a scheme of the Charity Commissioners of February 1891, the endowment of the Bishopsgate ward schools, together with those of the St. Ethelburga's Society School and the Middle Class School in Cowper Street, merged in that of a new foundation to be called the Central Foundation Schools of London, which also received endowments from the Estates Governors of Dulwich College. The Foundation was to maintain the boys' school in Cowper Street, the girls' school in Spital Square and a Higher Commercial School in St. Luke's parish. (fn. 107)

In 1897 the school was attended by 363 girls. (fn. 108)

The school buildings in Spital Square were opened by the Chairman of the Central Foundation Schools, Lord Goschen, on 16 December 1891. (fn. 106) The architects were Messrs. T. Chatfield Clarke and Son, and the cost, excluding the value of the land, was £18,000. (fn. 109) Adjoining the school was a hall used by the school and a curate's house for the use of Bishopsgate parish. In 1899 and 1905–7 additional buildings were erected by H. Chatfield Clarke on a site in Montague Court with an entrance in Bishopsgate parish, (fn. 110) the school thereby becoming ’the one City Ward and Parochial School which having developed into a secondary school still stands in its original parish and ward’. (fn. 106) In 1911 St. Botolph Hall, which stood on the north-west part of the site and which the school had shared with the parish, was purchased by the school. (fn. 111)

The school comprises an asymmetrical group of buildings in red brick and biscuit terra-cotta, designed in a free version of the Flemish Renaissance style. The main class-room block at the back of the site is ranged east and west and has a short north wing at its east end. The three lofty storeys have ranges of large sash windows looking north over the forecourt, and a few gables break the slated expanse of the pitched roof from which a flêche rises. The former curate's house and parish hall of St. Botolph, fronting directly on to the Square, are more florid in detail. The end of the hall is a composition of three bays, one wide between two narrow, each with a large mullioned and transomed window. A blind arcade underlines the gable, which is flanked by obelisks and contains a window dressed with a swan-necked pediment.

Nos. 36 and 37 Spital Square

Formerly Nos. 35 and 36 Spital Square

No. 36 Demolished

There is no documentary evidence of the building of these houses, although both are shown on the ’New Church’ plans of 1711–12 and were probably built at the same time as Nos. 4–9 and 38. Notes of rate books no longer surviving suggest that the original No. 37 may have existed in 1699. It occurs in the rate books in 1731 and 1750 but apparently not in 1741; it may be that it was then unoccupied and in course of reconstruction, as its present appearance is of the mid-eighteenth century. (fn. 19) The only surviving house on the south side of the west arm, it has a plain stock brick front, three storeys high. The wooden doorcase is of simple but elegant design, with a moulded architrave flanked by plain narrow jambs, and a cornice-hood resting on carved consoles. The windows, three to each upper floor, have stone sills and straight arches of gauged brick. The interior is generally lined with plain panelling; the first-floor front room has a good modillioned cornice with enriched members, and a Doric archway links the hall with the staircase compartment.

No. 36 was occupied in 1761 and 1790 by Robert Galhie, surgeon, and in 1802–3 and 1819 by ’Galhie and Gayton’, surgeons. (fn. 27)

Figure 19:

No. 38 Spital Square, ? c, 1700, plan and front elevation. Re-drawn from The Builder

No. 38 Spital Square

Formerly No. 37 Spital Square

The architectural character of this house suggests construction about 1700; it may, like No. 37, have existed in 1699. It was a double-fronted house, one room deep, facing east and almost closing the west arm of the Square. It is illustrated (fig. 19) in an article by Gilbert H. Lovegrove, in The Builder of 15 January 1910. The plan was simple, with a room on each side of the centrally placed dog-leg staircase, and the house contained a basement, three storeys, and a roof garret. The front was of stock brick, with a raised bandcourse marking each floor level, and a modillioned eaves-cornice of wood below the tiled roof. There were two windows on each side of the central doorway, and five windows evenly spaced in each upper storey. All had gauged flat arches and jambs of red brick, and exposed flush frames containing double-hung sashes, those of the top storey having the original stout-section glazing bars. The doorway, with a six-panelled door surmounted by a metal cobweb fanlight, was framed by a wooden doorcase of Adamesque design.

It was rebuilt in 1909–10 (fn. 112) and the greater part of the rebuilt house was demolished in 1929 when the western entrance to the Square was widened. (fn. 113) In 1741 and 1758 it was occupied by Robert Lee, merchant, (fn. 114) perhaps the Robert Lee who undertook in 1745 to raise forty-one of his workmen against the Young Pretender. (fn. 64)

  • n1. An example of silk woven by Kemp, Stone & Co., in the Victoria and Albert Museum, is reproduced in Spitalfields Silks of the 18th and 19th Centuries, introduction by J. F. Flanagan, 1954, Plate .
  • 7. A. Boyer, The Political State of Great Britain, vol. xxxi, p. 55.
  • 19. L.C.C. Members’ Library file 411.
  • 20. R. Seymour, Survey of London, 1733, vol. i, P- 359.
  • 21. Serious Advice to the Silk Manufacturers, 17 51.
  • 22. The Times, 2 April 1828.
  • 23. Tallis, London Street Views, N.D. ( c. 1838–9).
  • 24. London, ed. C. Knight, 1842, vol. ii, p. 387.
  • 25. P.R.O., Works 7/276/9.
  • 26. M.L.R. 1734/3/300.
  • 27. R.B. and L.C.C. Members’ Library file 411.
  • 28. R.B.
  • 29. S.C.L.L.C, Norton Folgate Pavement Minutes, Aug. 1781, 14 Feb. 1782.
  • 30. Ibid., 25 Sept. 1781.
  • 31. Ibid., 22 Oct. 1789, 28 Jan., n Feb. 1790.
  • 32. Ibid., 26 July, 25 Oct. 1821; L.C.C. Architect's H.B. register, 1909.
  • 33. Deeds of Messrs. Sadler and Moore, and of the Co–operative Wholesale Society.
  • 34. Corporation of London Central Markets Com mittee Minutes, 25 June 1929, 27 July, 6 Oct. 1931; B.A. 48266.
  • 35. Deeds of Messrs. Sadler and Moore.
  • 36. Deeds of Central Foundation Schools of London.
  • 37. Corporation of London, Comptroller's Deeds 934/1
  • 38. 18 Geo. III, c. 77, public.
  • 39. S.C.L.L.C., Norton Folgate Pavement Minutes, 8 and 22 July 1779.
  • 40. Guildhall Library, MS. 2087.
  • 41. Corporation of London, Comptroller's Deeds 877/10, 929/56, 58,931/2,933/8, 934/1, 9, 936/22.
  • 42. T.P. 20889.
  • 43. Ibid., 62604.
  • 44. M.L.R. 1773/3/160—2; L.C.C. Members' Library file 411.
  • 45. The Universal Directorby Mr. Mortimer; L.C.C. Members’ Library file 411.
  • 46. D.N.B.
  • 47. M.L.R. 1810/6/738.
  • 48. S.C.L.L.C, Norton Folgate Trustees’ Minutes, 14 April 1813.
  • 49. M.L.R. 1745/1/91: L.C.C. Members’ Library file 411.
  • 50. L.C.C. Members’ Library file 411; D.N.B.
  • 51. M.L.R. 1719/4/316.
  • 52. Ibid., 1884/38/194.
  • 53. Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England, part in, 1937, p. 6 and note 11.
  • 54. M.L.R. 1725/1/295–6.
  • 55. Ibid., 1725/5/340.
  • 56. Ibid., 1726/4/324.
  • 57. L.C.C. Members’ Library file 411; A Complete Guide to London.
  • 58. See Colvin.
  • 59. R.B.; Holden's Triennial Directory, 1802–4.
  • 60. L.C.C. Members’ Library file 411; T. Lowndes, The London Directory for 1782; Kent's Directory, 1813.
  • 61. L.P.L., Papers, St. Botolph Bishopsgate, box I, No. (8).
  • 62. M.L.R. 1734/1/294.
  • 63. Ibid., 1745/1/91.
  • 64. The London Gazette, 5 Oct. 1745.
  • 65. The Universal Director . . . by Mr. Mortimer.
  • 66. S.C.L.L.C, Norton Folgate Trustees’ Minutes, 30 Nov. 1775.
  • 67. Kent's Directory, 1780–6; London Directory, 1778 and 1790; Universal British Directory, 1791.
  • 68. Holden's Directory, 1805–7; Kent's Directory, 1813 and 1818.
  • 69. P.O.D. and Pigot's Directory.
  • 70. L.C.C. Members’ Library file 411; P.O.D.
  • 71. P.O.D.
  • 72. O.S. map 1873–5.
  • 73. M.L.R. 1734/1/117–19, 227–9 294.
  • 74. Ibid., 1734/3/300.
  • 75. Ibid., 1734/1/294; I735/4/174.
  • 76. Ibid., 1735/1/412.
  • 77. Ibid., 1745/3/159.
  • 78. Ibid., 1734/1/422.
  • 79. Ibid., 1736/5/183.
  • 80. Ibid., 1734/1/218.
  • 81. Ibid., 1734/4/287.
  • 82. Ibid., 1736/2/237.
  • 83. Ibid., 1736/4/573.
  • 84. Ibid., 1739/1/93.
  • 85. Baldwin's New Complete Guide, 1770.
  • 86. A Complete Guide to London.
  • 87. Corporation of London Central Markets Com mittee Minutes, 4 May 1927, 1 June 1928, 3 May, 12 June 1933.
  • 88. M.L.R. 1741/1/98; 1763/4/396.
  • 89. Ibid., 1741/1/98, 275–6.
  • 90. Ibid., 1763/4/396.
  • 91. Parish Magazine of St. Mary's, Spital Square, July 1892 (copy in Bishopsgate Institute); P.O.D.
  • 92. Parish Magazine, loc. cit.; L.C.C. Architect's file, H.B. 57.
  • 93. Corporation of London Central Markets Com mittee Minutes, 14 Feb. 1922.
  • 94. M.L.R. 1742/3/103.
  • 95. T. Lowndes, The London Directory for 1782.
  • 96. L.C.C. Members' Library file 411; Robson's Directory.
  • 97. P.R.O., E179/2 53/30.
  • 98. Ibid., E179/143/370.
  • 99. M.L.R. 1713/6/146.
  • 100. Ibid., 1742/3/103.
  • 101. L.C.C. Members' Library file 411; Baldwin's New Complete Guide, 1770.
  • 102. London Directory, 1778; R.B.
  • 103. Robson's Directory; P.O.D.
  • 104. Endowed Charities, London, vol. v, 1903, p. 641; Central Foundation Girls' School Bicentenary Magazine, 1726–1926.
  • 105. Endowed Charities, London, vol. iii, 1900, pp. 646–51.
  • 106. Bicentenary Magazine (see 104 above).
  • 107. Endowed Charities, London, vol. iii, 1900, pp. 652–7.
  • 108. Ibid., p. 666.
  • 109. Notice of opening ceremony.
  • 110. B.A. 15618.
  • 111. Bicentenary Magazine; deeds of Central Foun dation Schools of London.
  • 112. The Builder, 15 Jan. 1910.
  • 113. Corporation of London Central Markets Com mittee Minutes, 25 June 1929; B.A. 48266.
  • 114. A Complete Guide to London; R.B.


text:
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

For Physicians

  • For Phy - 3

    Schedule an Appointment

    (Mammogram, X-ray, Ultrasound, Dexa)

For Patients

  • For Patient

  • Request an appointment
    Request an Appointment

    (MRI/MRA, CT/CTA, PET/CT, Breast Biopsies, Nuclear Medicine,Fluoroscopy,and Hysterosalpinogram)

BRMI News Flash

Please update your Flash Player to view content.

BRMI - QSched application is a health portal that enables patients and doctors to easily perform.

  • Our Radiologists

    Read More

  • ACR Accredited