To download a .pdf version of Chapter 3, click “Download” below:
Having established in Chapter 1 the foundation for asserting Edward Arterbury (Mason) as the father of William, the American immigrant, the author will now attempt to establish a similar basis for the ancestry of Edward Arterbury. First, it should be noted that there were no birth or christening records found for anyone approximating either Edward Arterbury or his presumed brother, Richard (Carpenter) in or about London. Up to this point in the author’s investigation into the ancestry of William Atterbury, Immigrant, it has relied primarily on London and Middlesex County church records, tax records and court records. For this search for the possible ancestry of Edward Arterbury, the scope will be widened to include church records outside Middlesex County and the Ancestry.com database entitled “London, England, Freedom of the City Admission Papers, 1681-1925”. Although the extant apprenticeship records for the historical London Liveries are only partially complete, the surviving records can provide valuable genealogical information.
In the earlier analysis contained in Chapter 1 the occupations of several key Atterbury men have been gleaned from Church records, and are iterated as follows: William Atterbury (Blacksmith), William Atterbury (Butcher), Edward Atterbury (Mason) and Richard Atterbury (Carpenter). In the 14th through the 18th centuries in London occupations of the most prominent trades were regulated by each of the established trade companies. Each company maintained its own operational standards in order to insure the qualifications of its members and the integrity of the profession. Admission into a Trade typically required the completion of an apprenticeship wherein the initiate (apprentice) was indentured to and under the tutelage of a Journey or Master craftsman of that trade. Such apprenticeships were formalized through the execution of an indenture which was typically a three-party agreement between the apprentice, the father of the apprentice, and the Master. The term of an apprenticeship varied between four and seven years, with a fee being paid the Master, which in the 1700’s averaged about ₤15. On occasion a son was admitted to a Livery Company through a process known as Patrimony. Under Patrimony a member in good standing with a Livery Company could request the admission of a legitimate son, born after the father had been made Free, and certified by the father as having been thoroughly trained for the trade.
The apprenticeship indenture contained the names of the initiate and the father or other sponsor, the father’s occupation and place of residence, the name of the Master and his craft, the duration, rules and terms of the apprenticeship, the consideration paid, and the effective date of the agreement. If other sponsors or witnesses were required, the signatures of those parties were shown on the face of the certificate. The author has compiled a summary list of apprenticeship records pertaining to several Atterbury men in London during the 17th and 18th centuries as shown in Table 3-1. Not all records contained in this table were derived directly from an indenture, but rather were reconstructed from information obtained from other source records.
There is a great deal of information contained in these apprenticeship records that may be useful in establishing the ancestry and kinship of Edward Atterbury (Mason), starting with his own indenture dated 19Jan1696. In this indenture it clearly identifies Edward’s father as having been Richard Atterbury, [Tallow] Chandler, “late of Choms [Cheams] in the County of Surrey”. Given the date of this indenture coupled with the occupation of “Mason”, there is little doubt but
that this was the same Edward Atterbury (Mason), who registered the christening of his son, Charles, at St. Olave, Bermondsey, Surrey on 15Mar1714. A digital image of Edward’s apprenticeship indenture is presented in Figure 3-1. As can be seen in this image, the indenture consisted of a preprinted form, with various blanks filled in by hand writing. The clarity of the handwritten portion of this indenture is quite legible. Richard Atterbury’s place of residence appears to read “Choms”, probably intended for the village of Cheams located in the southwest corner of Wallington Hundred, Surrey County. Richard was also identified with the occupation of “Chandler”, which pertained to either a member of the Company of Tallow Chandlers or Wax Chandlers. The trade of Tallow Chandler primarily entailed the rendering of animal fats into tallow and the fabrication of tallow products such as tallow candles, which were in wide usage in the 17th and 18th centuries for illumination of buildings and streets.
It is important to note that Edward signed at the bottom of his indenture, with the surname clearly being spelled “Arterbery” as seen in the enlarged inset shown in Figure 3-2. From the earlier analysis of records believed to have pertained to Edward Atterbury, Mason, the author remarked on the frequent appearance of Edward’s surname as “Arterbury”. Now we have a document containing his original signature which is clearly spelled “Arterbery”. The author believes this record should dispel any uncertainty about Edward’s understanding of the proper spelling of his surname, namely, that it was Arterbury [Arterbery], and not Atterbury.
Assuming the residence of Richard Atterbury (Chandler) to have been at Cheam, the author set about trying to locate records for any Atterburys who may have resided in the southwestern part of Wallington Hundred, Surrey County in the 17th Century. This line of inquiry led to the discovery of several records of Arterburys/Arthurburys in the church register of Morden Parish, nearby to and abutting Cheam Parish located as illustrated in Figure 3-3. These records are listed in chronological order as follows:
- …the wife of William Arthurburie was buried 16May1649.
Note the surname spelling of Arthurbury. The author has reason to believe that Arthurbury was the original spelling of this families name in the 16th century, and that it later morphed into Arterbury, and then into Atterbury. The William Arthurbury in this record may have been the father of or else the same person as the William Arthurbury who appeared in the three following records.
- William, son of William Arthurbury and Ann, his wife, was baptized 9Jun1650.
This William Arthurbury (father of William Jr.) may have been the same William, whose wife was buried in the preceding record. But, he may also have been the son of that William, whose wife was buried in 1649. This son, William, who was baptized on 9Jun1650, may have been the same William Arterbury (mason), who married Jane Wilkinson at All Hallows London Wall on 21Jun1676. The ages would certainly fit.
- Richard, the son of William Arthurbury and Ann, his wife, was baptized 17Oct1652.
This Richard Arthurbury, son of William Arthurbury and Anne, is believed to have been Richard Arthurbury, Chandler, and the father of Edward Arterbury (Mason).
- Anne Arterberry the wife of William Arterberry was buried 02 Sep 1682 and an Affidavit brought in 8 dayes.
This is believed to have been the burial record of the mother of William and Richard Arthurbury. Note that the surname spelling is beginning to appear as Arterbury, rather than Arthurbury.
- Edward ye son of Richard Arterbury & Jane his wife was baptized in ye beginning of May 1684.
This is believed to have been the birth record of Edward Arterbury, Mason. Note the mother’s name, Jane, as Edward and Elizabeth registered the christening of a daughter named Jane at St. Lawrence Pountney on 7Aug1720.
- Richard ye son of Richard Arterbury & Jane his wife was baptized upon 14 Feb 1685 [O.S.].
The author had hypothesized that Richard Atterbury, Carpenter, was the brother of Edward Arterbury. That hypothesis was predicated primarily on the close living proximity in St. Anne Blackfriars and St. Olaves Bermondsey Surrey in the early 1700’s. Now we have an actual birth record for Edward’s brother, Richard Arterbury born 14Feb1686 [N.S.]. The author believes these birth records of Edward and Richard in such close chronological succession and geographic location to a father named Richard to be proof of the previously hypothesized kinship between Edward (Mason) and Richard (Carpenter). Note that Richard’s apprenticeship indenture recorded his father having been named Richard, [occupation appears to be Fruiterer], who resided in Morden or Merton Parish, Surrey (the script is unclear). Morden and Merton parishes were both in close proximity to Cheam parish, the location of Richard Atterbury (Chandler) as noted on Edward Arterbury’s apprenticeship indenture (see Figure 3-3). Also, the fact that Richard was shown with two different occupations was not uncommon. During this time period men frequently became members of more than one livery company during their lifetimes.
- William Arterbury of this parish was buried 03 Nov 1696 & an Affidavit brought within eight days of his burial with woollen onely.
This William Arterbury is believed to have been the husband of Anne and father of Richard and William Arterbury, the same person recorded in Items 2 through 4 above as William Arthurbury. Again, note the changing of the name from Arthurbury to Arterbury. Some importance may also be gleaned from the reference to an affidavit and the notation “burial with woollen onley”. In 1666 and 1680 Parliament passed two acts which required persons to be buried in a shroud of pure English wool, unless death was caused by the plague or the person was too poor to afford the cost of the woollen shroud. Violation of this act resulted in a fine of ₤5 against the decedent’s estate. The fact that both William and his wife, Anne, appear to have been buried in a woollen shroud suggests persons of some fair financial means.
- Edward Williams of Casaulton, shoemaker, and Elizabeth Arterbury of this (Morden) parish were married on 10Jun1697.
Although no birth record was found for an Elizabeth Arterbury in Morden Parish, this Elizabeth Arterbury, who married Edward Williams, is believed to have been an older daughter of Richard and Jane Arterbury and a sister of Edward and Richard Atterbury. Note the location of Edward Williams as Casaulton, almost certainly intended to be Carlshalton, noted as No. 7 in Figure 3-3.
Assuming the author’s interpretation of these church records from Morden Parish to be correct, we now have the identity of Edward Arterbury’s parents, grandparents, two siblings and an uncle. For sake of clarification of these ancestral connections these familial kinships for Edward Arterbury have been compiled into a genealogical construct as shown in the preceding descendants chart
Edward Arterbury was christened on 1May1684 and was apprenticed on 19Jan1696/7 at the age of about 12 years 7 months. His indenture was for a seven year term, which Edward would have completed when he was 19-2/3 years of age. Although no record was found of Edward becoming a Free Mason, he probably could have achieved that status immediately upon completion of his apprenticeship. No record was found of Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth in the traditional, Church of England registers. However, there is a record of an Edward Arterbery marrying Elizabeth Young on 23Jan1703/4 at or near the Fleet Prison, London. The record indicates that both parties were living on Angel Street-Broad Wall in Christ Church Parish near the Hogg [Inn] (Southwark) in the County of Surrey. The author is of the opinion that this was the marriage of the Edward Arterbury, who was apprenticed to Thomas Wise II on 19Jan1696/7. The basis for this belief is that Edward Arterbery, the Mason, would have completed his apprenticeship four days before this marriage was performed, and that there is good reason to believe that Edward lived in Southwark during his apprenticeship, as discussed later in this Chapter.
There are twelve records for the birth of an Elizabeth Young in Surrey County during the 1670’s and 80’s, but only one record was for a birth in Christ Church Parish abstracted as follows:
- 28Feb1678/9 Elizabeth Young was baptized, daughter of William Young, waterman, and Audrey, his wife in Christ Church Parish.
Given the father’s occupation of waterman and the location of the birth having been in Christ Church Parish, the author is inclined to believe that this was the birth record for the wife of Edward Arterbury. Assuming that this was the birth record for Elizabeth Young, wife of Edward Arterbury, Elizabeth would have been about six years older than Edward. Again, assuming this to have been Edward’s wife, Elizabeth’s father is believed to have died three years before her marriage to Edward as abstracted in the following burial record:
- 7Nov1701 William Young, waterman, was buried in Christ Church Parish.
It is important to note that Edward Arterbery used the “Arterbery” spelling on this marriage record, as that name spelling comports with the spelling used by Edward in his signing of his apprenticeship record. It is further important to note that he indicated his residence as having been on Angel Street-Broad Wall, as that would seemingly provide a fairly precise location of his residence in Jan1703/4. It seems possible that that may also have been the location of his parents’ family.
Angel Street-Broad Wall was a north-south main street in the westerly part of Southwark as shown in Figure 3-4. Prior to about 1670 the area bounded by Broadwall-Angell Street on the west, Melancholy Lane on the south, Gravel Lane on the East and the Thames River on the north delineated an area historically known as Paris Garden Manor. This manor dated from about the 12th century, and is generally coincident with the present boundary of Christ Church Parish. The land contained therein amounted to just under one hundred acres and passed through numerous and varied owners, including the Order of the Templars in the 14th century. Topographically, the land within Paris Garden Manor was marshy and several feet below the Thames River high tide. But for the protection afforded by the Thames River south embankment and surrounding drainage channel, Paris Garden Manor would have been perpetually flooded. The tract was ringed by a drainage channel (apparently manmade), which flowed into the Thames near Paris Garden Stairs. Over the centuries there was a continual struggle to maintain this drainage channel and to provide protection from flooding.
In 1634, while in the tenure of the Hugh Browker family, a survey showed 30 houses within Paris Garden Manor. Undoubtedly, this inventory of properties included the luxury brothel, known as Holland’s Leaguer, which operated in the old Paris Garden Manor House, a fortress-like citadel, surrounded by a moat and accessible only across its drawbridge. In its heyday Holland’s Leaguer is reputed to have been a favorite haunt of King James I. Being situated within relatively close proximity to the Swan, Globe and Hope theaters, Holland’s Leaguer was a popular destination following theater performances, by those wealthy enough to afford its luxuries, estimated at about ₤20 per visit.
In 1655 Thomas Browker and his wife, Mary, sold the manor to William Angell, a wealthy London grocer, for the sum of ₤500 at which time it was described as follows:
“The manor was then said to comprise ten messuages, eighty cottages, twenty tofts, twenty gardens, twenty orchards, ten acres of land, fifty acres of meadows, thirty acres of pasture and one acre of woodland. A large part of the property was in lease to various tenants.”
“Angell seems to have bought the property as a speculation. He carried out a certain amount of building in the neighborhood of Upper Ground and laid out Angell Street (now Broadwall) between the Old Barge House and Melancholy Walk (now Surrey Row) along the line of Broadwall.”
In the latter half of the 17th century a cloth dying industry began to flourish in Paris Garden Manor, with numerous establishments devoted to “whiting” grounds, soaking, dying, drying and folding.
In 1627 a gentleman named John Marshal of Axe Yard made his Will in which he made several bequests of his lands and tenements in Newington and St. Georges Field in Southwark, part of which were to be managed until the sum of ₤700 had been raised for the erection of a new church in Southwark to be named “Christ Church”. As often happens with bequests of this nature, it took several decades for the establishment of the church provided in John Marshall’s endowment. William Angell agreed to donate the land from Paris Garden Manor for the erection of Christ Church. Over the objections of St. Saviour’s Parish, the church land was dedicated and the building construction commenced in about 1668. A new parish was created and named Christ Church Parish, its boundaries to be generally coincident with the old boundaries of Paris Garden Manor. Construction of Christ Church building was substantially completed by 1671.
Since both Edward Arterbury and his new wife, Elizabeth Young described themselves as being of Christ Church Parish, it seems probable that their families may have been resident in that community for several years prior to 1704, and may have continued residency there for several years thereafter. Before proceeding with this investigation into the life of Edward Arterbury, it is worth discussing his choice of a Fleet Marriage. Clandestine or non-ecclesiastical marriages were the normal practice in Europe prior to adoption of Council of Trent in 1429, which held that all marriages were henceforth to require the sanctification of the church. England did not consent to the dictums of the Council of Trent pertaining to marriages, and civil marriages continued to be permitted in Common Law until passage of the Marriage Laws of 1754. Prior to 1754 marriages could be performed either within a sanctioned church, or within a lawless church. St. James Duke’s Place and Trinity Minories in London were two of the most active chapels performing marriages without license or publishing of banns. Perhaps the most reviled and notorious haven for the performance of clandestine marriages was at Fleet Prison. Marriages performed in or around Fleet Prison were known as Fleet Marriages.
Fleet Prison was located on upper Farringdon Street along Fleet Ditch, just above the Fleet Bridge in Ludgate Hill Street. During the 17th and 18th centuries this prison was operated by private interests under royal patent. In fact, following its destruction in the Great Fire in 1666, the prison was rebuilt by its then proprietor, Sir Jeremy Whichcote, entirely from his own funds. Its habitués were primarily imprisoned debtors, which included members of the clergy. Since Fleet Prison was considered to be outside the governance of civil authority, incarcerated clergymen were permitted to conduct marriage ceremonies and to issue marriage certificates inside the prison chapel, but later were extended to the immediate environs outside the Prison abstracted as follows:
“Many of the early Fleet weddings were really performed at the chapel in the Fleet; but as the practice extended, it was found more convenient to have other places within the Rules of the Fleet, (added to which the Warden was compelled by act of parliament not to suffer them,) and thereupon many of the Fleet parsons and tavern-keepers in the neighborhood fitted up a room in their respective lodgings or houses as a chapel. The parsons took the fees, allowing a portion to the plyers [recruiters], etc. and the tavern-keepers, besides sharing in the fees, derived profit from the sale of liquors which the wedding party drunk. In some instances the tavern-keepers kept a parson on their establishment at a weekly salary of twenty schillings; while others, upon a wedding-party arriving, sent for any clergyman they might please to employ…”.
The earliest record of Fleet marriages dates from 1613, but extant registers of Fleet marriages commence in about 1685 and continue into the 1750’s. Without boring the reader with all the titillating tales of the sharp practices employed by these Fleet parsons, their clerks and the so-called plyers [recruiters], suffice it to say that these clandestine marriages were oftentimes highly irregular, and bordering on the criminal. For every legitimate marriage performed at the Fleet, there were likely as many that were patched up affairs. Records were knowingly manipulated to cater to the tastes and morals of the participants. Coercion, falsification of names and dates, and subterfuge and extortion were all part of a days work at the Fleet. The clergymen were not always properly ordained, or may in fact have been previously dismissed by the Church. But, in the main a Fleet marriage was generally recognized as a legal union between a man and a woman.
The impetus for Edward Arterbury and Elizabeth Young to seek a Fleet marriage can only be guessed at. More often than not, the motivation would have been a matter of economic imperative or expediency. It should also be recognized that a certain number of the marriages were in defiance of the Anglican Church on a matter of religious principal (dissenters). Since Edward and Elizabeth were married only four days after he fulfilled his apprenticeship obligation, it might be assumed that their choice of a Fleet marriage may have been both for economy and expediency. It will later be discovered that other characters in this saga of the Arterbury ancestry also partook of Fleet marriages, including William Arterbury (the Immigrant); William’s cousin, Abraham Atterbury (Carpenter); William’s brother, Edward Jr.; and William’s executed criminal associate, Leonard Budley.
The births of Edward and Elizabeth’s first two children (Edward Jr. and William) were recorded while the family lived on New Street in Farringdon Within Ward, within about one block of both St. Anne Blackfriars Church and St. Andrew’s by the Wardrobe Church, and about five blocks of Fleet Prison. The tax records indicate that Edward’s family lived at that address on New Street from 1706 to 1711. It seems probable that they may have continued to live on Angel Street-Broadwall in Christ Church Parish in 1704 and 1705. By 1712 it is believed that Edward and Elizabeth had moved their family back across the Thames to St. Olave’s Parish in Southwark (shown as No. 3 on Figure 11), where they are believed to have remained until about 1720.
Although born about 12 miles south of central London at Morden Parish, Edward Arterbury probably would have taken up residency near London upon the commencement of his apprenticeship to Thomas Wise. By the terms of his indentures, Thomas Wise accepted responsibility for providing food, clothing and lodging to his apprentices. It was common practice for an apprentice to be lodged either at his Master’s residence or nearby to his place of business. Since Edward was only about 12-1/2 years old when he entered his apprenticeship, it seems likely that he would have been too young to live in an unsupervised setting, thus making it probable that he resided with his Master. There are a number of facts in the records to suggest that Thomas Wise II may have established his residence either at or near the Bridge House Yard in Southwark, nearby to St. Olave’s Church. Consequently, if that were Thomas Wise II’s place of residence, then it logically follows that that would also have been the place of residence of his apprentices, including Edward Arterbury.
The records from St. Olave’s, Southwark believed to have pertained to Thomas Wise II are listed as follows:
- Elizabeth Wise, christened on 7Oct1675, daughter of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Jeane [Joane or Joanna?].
The author believes this record to have been for Thomas Wise II because of the location, date and occupation.
- Susannah Wise, christened on 11Oct1677, daughter of Thomas Wise (Mason) and his wife, Joanna.
- Joan Wise, buried on 3Sep1686, wife of Thomas Wise.
No marriage record was found for Thomas Wise and his presumed first wife, Joan [lnu]. But, there is good reason to believe that this Thomas Wise with wife, Joan, was Thomas Wise II, Mason, and the Master of Edward Arterbury. This likelihood is based on the noted occupation of “Mason” and the location of these records having been in St. Olave’s, Southwark, and further supported by an Elizabeth Wise, daughter of Thomas Wise having been named executrix in the LWT of Thomas Wise dated 20Feb1719/0 discussed later in this section.
The next record believed to have been for Thomas Wise II (Mason) was the following marriage:
- On 26Dec1689 Thomas Wise married Ann Hayton at St. James Duke’s Place Church in London.
The names and date of this marriage fit very well with the death of Thomas Wise’ presumed first wife and the birth records of the children listed below.
There was a Thomas and Anne Wise recorded in the records of St. Olave’s, Southwark in the 1690’s and early 1700’s believed to have been the family of Thomas Wise II, Master Mason, listed as follows:
- Harry Wise, christened on 7Jun1693, son of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Anne.
- Charles Wise, christened 28Sep1694, son of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Anne. Buried 11Oct1694.
- Charles Wise, christened 10Oct1695, son of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Anne. Buried 27Jun1696.
- Anne Wise, christened 14Jul1697, daughter of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Anne. Burial on 21Apr1704
- James [Jacob?] Wise, christened 5Aug, 1700, son of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Anne.
- Charles Wise, christened 11Dec1701, son of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Anne.
- George Wise, christened 17Nov1703, son of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Anne.
- Anne Wise, christened 5Aug1705, daughter of Thomas Wise (Mason) and wife, Anne. Burial on Feb1705/6.
Note that there was also a burial record entered at St. Olave’s for Anne Wise as follows:
- Anne Wise, buried 30May1714, daughter[?] of Thomas Wise.
This record is believed to have been entered in error and should have been for the burial of Thomas Wise’ wife. Thomas and Anne were recorded with the births of two daughters named “Anne”, one on 14Jul1697 and another on 5Aug1705. There were also burial records for each of these daughters as noted above. Consequently, Thomas Wise should not have had another daughter named Anne, making it likely that this burial record was of his wife, and not of another daughter. The likelihood of this record having been of Thomas Wise’ wife is strengthened by the fact that no wife was mentioned in his LWT discussed below.
There is also a burial record entered at St. Olave’s, Southwark for Captain Thomas Wise as follows:
- Capt. Thomas Wise, buried on 13Apr1720.
When coupled with the following reported LWT for Captain Thomas Wise recorded 11Apr1720, there seems little doubt that this burial record was for Thomas Wise II, Master Mason. The meaning of the title or rank of “Captain” as it appears on this burial record, as well as on the jacket of the LWT is unknown to the author. Perhaps it was a title accorded to Thomas Wise II in connection with his having held the post of Master Mason of Bridge House Estate (more discussion to follow).
A Thomas Wise wrote his LWT in St. Olave’s Parish, Southwark on 20Feb1719 [1720 N.S.], which was recorded on 11Apr1720. On the cover of this LWT the testator was identified as Capt. Thomas Wise. Because of the location, timing and matching titles, the author believes the burial record to have been for the same person whose LWT was recorded on 11Apr1720. The author also believes that this was the LWT of Thomas Wise II, Master Mason. This belief is based on several factors:
- There were no other records found for persons named Thomas Wise living in St. Olave’s, Southwark during this time period besides those specifically connected to Thomas Wise, Mason.
- In the LWT were mentioned three children: a daughter named Elizabeth Wise, who was designated as sole Executrix, a son named Jacob Wise, and a son named Charles Wise. It should be noted that Thomas Wise, Mason and his first wife, Joanna, had a daughter named Elizabeth. No birth record was found for a son named Jacob, but there was a birth record for a son named James. In the Jewish culture there is the frequent occurrence of the given name of Jacob in honor of the biblical son of Isaac (Old Testament). During the translation of the Bible into the English language, the translators seem to have converted the name of New Testament references from Jacob into James, whereas the Old Testament remained as Jacob. Scholars are unsure of the cause of this anomaly, but are aware of its existence. Some have posited that the conversion of “Jacob” into “James” was intended as a tribute to King James, for whom the Bible was being translated. Is it possible that the Wise family originated from Jewish ancestry, and that a remnant of that cultural background may have spilled over into the LWT of Thomas Wise II when he may have reverted to the Hebrew spelling of his son James’ name? Given the apparent matching of the children: Elizabeth, James [Jacob] and Charles, it seems highly probable that this LWT was of Thomas Wise II, Master Mason.
- There were several books bequeathed to sons: Jacob and Charles on the subjects of architecture, mathematics and geography, all subjects that would be essential to the practice of masonry.
- It was in the year of 1720 that Edward Arterbury, mason, appears to have moved from St. Olave’s, Southwark to St. Lawrence Pountney, the same year as the death of this Thomas Wise. If this Thomas Wise were Thomas Wise II, Master Mason, it would make sense that his protégé, Edward Arterbury, might change the location of his residence following the death of his former master and employer.
From the foregoing records it has been established with a fairly high level of certainty that Thomas Wise II, Master Mason lived continuously in St. Olave’s, Southwark for most of his adult life. Consequently, as stated earlier, it seems very likely that Edward Arterbury also would have lived at Southwark throughout his entire apprenticeship between 1696 and about 1703.
Before applying further scrutiny to Thomas Wise II, Master Mason, it might be useful to briefly explore the life of his father. Thomas Wise I was granted a Tower Patent on 6Jun1678 appointing him to the office of “Mason to the King”, a post that he held until his death sometime shortly before 11Jan1686[N.S.]. The following excerpts provide a brief biographical sketch of Thomas Wise I, Master Mason:
“Thomas Wise was appointed Mason to the King on 6Jun1678, according to the Exchequer Records (Audit Office), vol. 8, p. 82. The Patent is in Part I., 30 Car. II., and is in the common form (Latin). It appoints him to the office of “Cementarius sive Master Mason”. Joshua Marshall is named as the predecessor. [Note: salary as Master Mason was 12 pence per day or ₤18 5s per annum].
The following extracts show that Thomas Wise continued at work until at least Michaelmas, 1685, and that his Executors were paid his salary up to that date for works at Chelsea Hospital between April and July, 1687. It may be his Executors carried on his work after his decease so as to finish the contract; for it is clear that on 11Jan1685/6, he was deceased, as an order was then made appointing John Oliver in his place. The Patent to Thomas Wise was a Tower Patent. Calendar of State Papers, 1685-89. (B. M. 2080 a.a.). At page 1,446 is C. Wren’s certificate for payments for works at Chelsea Hospital, 18Apr1687 – 7Jul1687. To the exor. of Tho’. Wise, mason, ₤336 1. 4. (To Thomas Hill, mason, ₤722 10. 10.).
N. B. – Thomas Wise and William Wise are named, A.Q.C. ix., 42, in company with Sir Wm. Wilson, Knt., Capt. R. Bortwick and others.
12Jun1688. (p. 1,938). Money warrant for ₤9 2. 6. to the Executors of Thomas Wise for half a year to 1685 Michaelmas on his fee as the late Master Mason to the works (i.e., works in Scotland Yard).”
In the patent issued to John Oliver, Thomas Wise’ successor as Master Mason, the duties were described as: “of all our (King’s) works as well as within the Tower of London as in all and singular our honours and castles, Lordships and Manors wherein we do or shall or may hereafter reside.”
“On March the 10th,1682, about 5 hor. post merid. I received a summons to appear at a Lodge to be held the next day at Masons Hall in London. March 11, accordingly I went, and about noon were admitted into the fellowship of Free Masons Sir William Wilson, Knt. Capt. Richard Borthwick, Mr. William Woodman, Mr. William Gray, Mr. Samuel Taylour, and Mr. William Wise. I was the senior Fellow among them, it being thirty five years since I was admitted. There were present, beside myself, the Fellows after named: Mr. Thomas Wise, Master of the Masons’ Company this present year, Mr. Thomas Shorthose, and seven more old Free Masons. We all dined at the Half Moon Tavern, Cheapside, at a noble dinner prepared at the charge of the new accepted Masons.”
From the foregoing it can be seen that Thomas Wise I had achieved the pinnacle of his profession, being appointed Mason to the King between 1678 and 1686, and serving as Master of the Mason’s Company in 1682. He appears to have worked on several of Christopher Wren’s projects including St. Paul’s Cathedral and Chelsea Hospital, and at Scotland Yard, etc. Note that the reference to “Scotland Yard” pertained to the eastern portion of Whitehall Palace. Thomas Wise I left a nuncupative Will which was uttered on 12Dec1685 at the home of his son, Thomas Wise II at Southwark. The author has transcribed this Will in Appendix XX from a handwritten copy obtained from The Genealogist.com. In his Will, Thomas Wise I made a bequest of ₤500 to his son, Thomas Wise II, with the balance of his estate equally divided among his only living children: Thomas Wise, John Wise and William Wise. It was further stated that Thomas Wise II was the older of the sons, and that he had six children alive in Dec1685, and that the other two sons had no children.
The professional history of Thomas Wise II can be gleaned from the following extracts:
“The son of Thomas Wise I, he ran a large Portland stone business for many years and was a mason-contractor employed on the construction of St Paul’s Cathedral. Wise and his partner Thomas Gilbert supplied Portland stone for St Paul’s from 1678 onwards, for Winchester Palace in 1683 and for the water gallery at Hampton Court as late as 1690. The Winchester Palace stone contract describes the partners as ‘of the Isle of Portland’ but a contract for St Paul’s Cathedral, dated 23 December 1680, refers to them as ‘Thomas Gilbert of ye Isle of Portland and Thomas Wise of St Olave’s, Southwark’ (Wren Soc, VII, 32-3; XVI, 19).” This reference to Thomas Wise being of St. Olave’s, Southwark comports with the earlier analysis of church and estate records for the person whom the author believes to have been Thomas Wise II. The reference to Winchester Palace undoubtedly pertains to the structure designed by Christopher Wren at Winchester for Charles II, but which was only partially completed at the time of the King’s death in 1685. Although not completed, the structure was used variously for the housing of prisoners of war, as well as for military barracks.
“Wise [Jr.] was made free of the Masons’ Company in 1684, probably by patrimony. He became an upper warden in 1694 and master of the Company in 1698 [two years after Edward Arterbury’s indenture]. He seems to have been working with his father at St Paul’s in 1685, since there is a note by Thomas Wise I in the Acquittance Book, under the date 4 July 1685, authorising a payment to his son. In December 1685 Wise took over his father’s work at the Cathedral, in partnership with Thomas Hill I. At the time of the general search in 1694 Wise and Hill employed 16 masons at St Paul’s. In 1698 they contracted to carry out the stonework of the south west quarter of the dome and they continued to work on the building until 1707. Between them they received payments of £24,509. Their work included carved stonework, such as scrolls, festoons, capitals at £15 a face, ‘window scrowles’ at £6 each, the keystone of the great window on the inside of the portico and some of the shields in the wreaths of the nave cupolas (2). Based on the church records Thomas Wise II was already married in Oct1675 when his daughter, Elizabeth, was born at St. Olave’s Southwark, and was describing himself as a Mason. So, it is entirely possible that he could have been working as a stone supply contractor in partnership with Thomas Gilbert in 1678 as suggested in the above extract. But it seems strange that he would not have been made free to the Company of Masons until 1684 as stated above. It is possible that this writer may have confused some of the earlier records for Thomas Wise II, when they may actually have pertained to Thomas Wise I.
“It was probably Thomas Wise II (not his father) who succeeded Joseph Cartwright as mason for the Bridge House, London Bridge, in 1684. He received an annual salary of £4 and regularly supplied stone and effected repairs. In 1685 he was paid £50 for the ‘Neece’ [niche] for the statue of Charles II at Southwark town hall (Bridge House Rentals, 1682-86) (1). Thomas Wise was still master mason at the Bridge at the end of September 1694. Samuel Peareman, who began work at the Bridge in July 1694, was apprenticed to him the following October. Two further apprentices are recorded: Thomas’s son, John Wise, was bound to him on 4 December 1689 and he was joined by Robert Blake on 24 November 1690. Both worked at the Bridge.” The reference to the “Neece” for the statue of Charles II at City Hall is probably in reference to a Niche constructed into the wall that surrounded the newly erected City Hall described briefly as follows:
“St. Margaret’s Church, eventually desecrated to be the town hall, was to the north of the junction of the way from London Bridge and Stoney Street. It was rebuilt, to fit its later purpose [City Hall], in 1676, a structure with a heavily projecting cornice, which stood on an open arcade, and was adorned by a statue of Charles II. This hall was in 1793 replaced by a modern building, and the statue was removed to Three Crowns Court and thence to the Old Kent Road.”
There is some confusion in the information presented in the extract above relative to Thomas Wise II as Mason of Bridge House Estate, as well as references to his apprentices. For example, an earlier extract suggested that Thomas Wise II was not made free of the Company until 1684, yet the above extract suggests that he was appointed Mason for Bridge House Estate in 1684. It seems highly unlikely that Thomas Wise II would have been appointed to such an important position as Mason of Bridge House Estate, if he had only recently been made free of the Company. It seems probable that Thomas Wise II had actually been made free of the Company several years earlier (perhaps as early as 1675), in order to have been considered for such an important post. Also, the author did not find a record of Thomas Wise II having had a son named John Wise. It is possible that John Wise may have been the brother of Thomas Wise II, as mentioned in the LWT of Thomas Wise I. It is also possible that Thomas Wise II did have a son named John, as the LWT of Thomas Wise I mentioned Thomas Wise II as having six children. Clearly, Thomas Wise II must have had other children by his first wife for which records were not located.
From the penultimate cited extract it is unclear just how long Thomas Wise II may have served as Master Mason for Bridge House Estate, but it seems very possible that that service may have continued into the early 1700’s considering that he appears to have remained in residence at St. Olave’s Southwark until his death in 1720. He is recorded as working in partnership with Thomas Hill at St. Paul’s Cathedral until 1707. It seems probable that Thomas Wise II would have moved his residence from Southwark to be nearer to his work at St. Paul’s, had there not been other attractions that kept him at Southwark, namely the post of Mason at the Bridge. The author is inclined to believe that Thomas Wise II may have been drawn to Southwark initially by his connection to work associated with the Bridge Yard, and that he remained in Southwark for almost 35 years due to his work connected with the Bridge Yard. Similarly, the author believes that it was Edward Arterbury’s connection to Thomas Wise II which was the primary cause that led Richard Arterbury and Edward Arterbury to relocate to St. Olave’s Southwark between 1708 and 1712.
Bridge House Estates dates to before about 1209 when the first stone bridge was completed across the Thames connecting Southwark to London. Initially the assets of the Estate [or Trust] consisted mainly of the London Bridge, the properties built upon the bridge, and Bridge House Yard. Refer to Figure 3-5 for an illustration of London Bridge and its properties as they may have appeared in about 1320. As shown in Figure 3-5 numerous structures were constructed atop the bridge, including St. Thomas Chapel located near the bridge’s center pier. These structures on the bridge were constructed with the use of monies from the Bridge House Estate treasury, and the revenues generated from the rental of these buildings were paid into the Bridge Fund.
In addition to rents the Bridge House Estate had authority to collect tolls and fines associated with traffic across and under the Bridge. In later years the scope of the fund was expanded to include other bridges within London, as well as other transportation related public works and the management of properties bequeathed by donors to the fund.
In earlier times there occurred conflicts between the monarchical, civil and ecclesiastical interests connected to the Bridge House Estate, with the civil interests ultimately prevailing. In the 34th year of the reign of King Henry III, seizure of the City of London, County of Middlesex, and London Bridge was ordered, and for all revenues generated from those entities to be paid into the King’s exchequer. After the death of King Henry III in 1272 a dispute continued between the King’s consort, Queen Eleanor, and the citizenry regarding the ownership and revenues of Bridge House Estate. In 1280 King Edward I authorized the Corporation of London to collect tolls and to solicit private contributions toward the Bridge Fund, thus placing the Bridge House Estate treasury and its governance under civil control and its treasury on a stable footing that would endure for more than 400 years.
In addition to the Bridge and its accompanying structures, the Bridge Fund owned property in Southwark on the south bank of the Thames to the east of St. Olave’s Church known as Bridge House and Yard as illustrated in Figure 3-6. As shown in Figure 14 Bridge House Yard fronted on Tooly Street and extended to the south bank of the Thames. It immediately abutted the estate of the Abbot of St. Augustine to the west, which in turn abutted St. Olave’s Church further westerly. The Bridge House Yard was a fairly large complex of residential buildings, shops, meeting hall, warehouses, granary, ovens, brewery, docks, wharves, and material storage yards, including a large stone yard and lumber yard.
Figure 3-7 provides a perspective view of Tooly Street [Barms Street on engraving] spanning from the south approach to London Bridge on the west to Battle Bridge on the east. Although this drawing, attributed to Ralph Agas in about 1560, shows numerous buildings within the Bridge House complex, it should be considered as an artists illustration, not as a precise record of structures. However, when compared to other maps, renderings and writings from the period, Agas’ engraving appears to have been fairly accurate in its scale and concept. Many writings from the 15th thru the 18th centuries mainly make reference to the Bridge House and the Granaries, but imbedded within these writings are references to groups of workmen having lodging within the Bridge House property, and actually having taken communal meals at the Yard at various times. The author does not believe that worker’s families would have resided within the Bridge House property, but likely took up lodging along Tooly Street or on London Bridge within easy access to Bridge House.
Figure 15 provides a plan view illustrating the extent of Bridge House Yard in comparison to the adjoining properties. When the Corporation of London took over administration of the Bridge it was determined to elect two individuals with the title of Bridge Warden to oversee the management of the Bridge House Trust and to make an annual accountancy of this fund to the Commission. The office of Bridge Warden was typically filled by senior Aldermen for a term not exceeding two years, with appointments being in alternate years so as to assure proper training and oversight of the junior Wardens by the senior Wardens. In addition to the appointment of the Bridge Wardens, a Bridge Master was also appointed, briefly described as follows:
“Over this Bridgehouse there is a Bridgemaster appointed, and he some Freeman, chosen by the City, whose Office is to look after the Reparation of the Bridge: He hath a liberal Salary allowed him. “
The author believes that it was to the office of Bridge Master which Thomas Wise II may have been appointed. From the foregoing description it would appear that the Bridge Master was not a political hack, but rather a person of requisite skill needed to oversee and manage the ongoing maintenance and repairs of London Bridge and its attendant properties. The Bridge Master would then have had responsibility for the requisition of supplies and materials and for the hiring of skilled craftsmen necessary for Bridge operations and maintenance. A glimpse into the array of personnel needed at Bridge House and Yard is evidenced by the following extract:
“A list of the inferior officers and workmen, with their weekly stipends, is found in the earliest Warden’s account, 1381-2. It includes (apart from the [St. Thomas] Chapel staff) the clerk of the drawbridge (20d), six carpenters (22s), four masons (14s, 3d), two sawyers (7s), one mariner (2s, 6d), the cook and keeper of the dogs (22d), the carter (22d), a week’s provender for the horses (15d), a boy (2s), one paviour (3s, 4d), one plasterer and his servant (4s, 6d), twenty-one tidemen working at the ram (compactor) for six hours (32s; at rate of 3d each per tide and 2d for drink), other workmen were employed as necessity arose, as plumbers, plasterers, tilers, painters, smiths, etc.”
“The staff of officials of the Bridge was very large; some had their offices on the Bridge and others at the Bridge House. They were treated by the Corporation and the Wardens with great consideration. Not only were gratuities allowed them during sickness, and medical and surgical attendance provided for their wants, but pensions were habitually granted to those who were incapacitated by old age or infirmities.”
During the time that Thomas Wise II served as Master Mason at Bridge House it was customary for the Master and the numerous employees of Bridge House to reside at Bridge House Yard or in nearby lodgings, including on London Bridge. The yard was also used for stockpiling and staging the array of building materials required for maintenance and repair of the Bridge and its properties. By 1685 London Bridge was almost 500 years old and was in constant need of repair. As might be expected a fairly large staff of craftsmen was maintained at Bridge House, many of whom were on 24-hour call in the event of emergencies. The following extract provides a general sense of the range of crafts/trades involved and the cost related to their lodging or office in the 18th century:
“The relative importance of the various officials, as estimated at the beginning of the 18th century, is shown in the following valuation of appointments taken from “a list of the rooms and offices bought and sold in the City of London”: One clerk of the Bridge House, ₤1,250; two carpenters, ₤200 each; one mason: ₤200; one plasterer, ₤200; one pavier, ₤250; one plummer, ₤250; two porters, ₤100 each; one purveyor, ₤200; and one shotsman, ₤200.”
Since the church records previously presented in this Chapter relating to Thomas Wise II were recorded in St. Olave’s Parish church, Southwark, it is reasonable to assume that Thomas Wise II and his family resided in that parish. Similarly, since the earlier records relating to Richard Arterbury (Carpenter) and Edward Arterbury (Mason) were found in St. Olave’s church, they too likely were living within the parish when those events occurred. In fact, it seems probable that the family of Richard Arterbury, carpenter, remained in Southwark for several decades, as Abraham Atterbury, Richard Atterbury’s son, was identified as being of Southwark in his marriage records in 1737 and 1740.
Throughout the 17th century and early part of the 18th century the boundaries of St. Olave’s parish were established generally as shown by the red dashed line in Figure 3-8. Although the bounds of St. Olave’s parish may appear to have been quite extensive, the fact is that it measured only about 3,500 feet in length and about 1,200 feet in depth. Its main area of habitation in the time between 1675 and 1720 would have been in tenements fronting along Tooly [St. Olave’s] Street, Bermondsey [Barnaby] Street and Horsely Down Street, with the greatest concentration having been along Tooly Street within about 1/4 mile of St. Olave’s church. Consequently, it seems probable that Thomas Wise II and the Arterbury brothers would have lived somewhere along Tooly Street in relatively close proximity to the Bridge House and Yard.
Unfortunately, there are no tax records in existence for Southwark borough during this time period, so it is not possible to establish these families’ places of residency with any greater specificity. When governance of Southwark was transferred to the Corporation of London a new ward, known as Bridge Ward Without, was created which entailed all of the Southwark Borough except for two properties belonging to the Crown. The Mayor of London was granted judiciary rule of Southwark, but most other administrative matters remained in the jurisdiction of Surrey County. The author believes it probable that the Arterbury brothers were employed by Bridge House Estate, as it would have been one of the principal employers in the parish, and one in which the trades of carpentry and masonry would have been in greatest demand.
To provide the reader with a better understanding of the social and economic character of 17th and 18th century Southwark the author compiled a database containing the occupations of most of its adult male residents over a ten year period between 1706 and 1715. This data was obtained from the christening and baptism records of St. Olave’s Church Register. There were a total of 210 different occupations noted which are presented below in their descending order of frequency as follows:
Seaman, Felt Maker, Waterman, Laborer, Shoemaker, Mariner, Carman, Dyer, Cooper, Porter, Taylor, Victualler, Blacksmith, Butcher, Fisherman, Carpenter, Leather Dresser, Drayman, Barber, Weaver, Lighterman, Shipwright, Baker, Soldier, Bricklayer, Joiner, Hat Dyer, Gardener, Wheelwright, Sawyer, Gentleman, Tanner, Felt Monger, Glover, Pipe Maker, Surgeon, Farrier, Pot Maker, Brewer’s Servant, Excise Man, Turner, Brewer, Chandler, Cook, Cutler, Plasterer, Tallow Chandler, Wool Comber, Cloth Worker, Pattin Maker, Sail Maker, School Master, Wire Drawer, Attorney, Cheese Monger, Currier, Hayman, Pavier, Twine Spinner, Wharfinger, Comb Maker, Glazier, Oarman, Officer, Wool Stapler, Oar Maker, Yarn Man, Apothecary, Book Seller, Cabinet Maker, Fishmonger, Brush Maker, Haberdasher, Pin Maker, Plumber, Small Coalman, Brewer’s Clerk, Distiller, Mason, Pewterer, Salesman, Wire Worker, Brazier, Card Maker, Guager, Goldsmith, Mealman, Merchant, Servingman, Skinner, Tide Waiter, Vintner, Anchorsmith, Basket Maker, Box Maker, Cleric, Collar Maker, Collier, Confectioner, Paper Printer, Potter, Whiting Man, Back Maker, Heel Maker, Hot Presser, Mast Maker, Miller, Poulterer, Seal Maker, Setter, Timber Merchant, Watch Maker, Wool Merchant, Bellows Maker, Clock Maker, Cloth Drawer, Cobbler, Corn Mealer, Packer, Perfumer, Rope Maker, Soapmaker, Stationer, Throwster, Tin Man, Upholsterer, Block Turner, Bodice Maker, Book Binder, Britches Maker, Calico Glasser, Calico Printer, Chapman, Corn Porter, Glass Maker, Gunsmith, Hat Maker, Hosier, Mop Maker, Needle Maker, Painter, Pastry Cook, Rug Maker, Spectacle Maker, Tobacco Cutter, Broker, Carver, Clay Merchant, Cork Cutter, Cotton Merchant, Grave Digger, Grinder, Hogman, Instrument Maker, Linen Draper, Mill Maker, Oilman, Salterer, Silk Dyer, Silversmith, Sugar Baker, Tobacconist, Trunk Maker, Whittler, Yeoman, Bag Maker, Barge Man, Bird Catcher, Button Seller, Chair Mender, Chemist, Ciderman, Clothier, Coal Heaver, Coachman, Coal Merchant, Colorer, Cordwainer, Corn Factor, Drover, Fan Maker, Fiddle Maker, Fork Cutler, Fruiterer, Fuller, Ginger Bread Baker, Glue Maker, Grocer, Groom, Gunstock Maker, Hauler, Hoop Bender, Housekeeper, Jeweler, Lace Maker, Lathewright, Locksmith, Map Maker, Merchant’s Clerk, Midwife, Milner, Physician, Powder Man, Scrivener, Servant, Stay Maker, Timberwright, Wine Cooper, Wool Cutter, Woolen Draper and Yeast Man.
Table 3-2 presents a tally of the numbers of births recorded to the top 25 most prevalent occupations over this ten-year period, which represented more than 75% of the 518 average births per year in St. Olave’s parish. Closer scrutiny of these occupations suggests the presence of several distinct and somewhat interdependent groups of crafts and trades.
Occupations associated with seafaring or marine activities appear to be the most prevalent as suggested by Table 3-3. From this table it is shown that there were an average of about 158 births per year recorded for this group of occupations, or approximately 30% of all births recorded during the selected ten-year period. Finding such a relatively high concentration of occupations in St. Olave’s parish associated with seafaring activities is not surprising given Southwark’s prominent and strategic location on the largest inland waterway in England and the largest port city in the Country (London). Nearby at Depford and Greenwich was situated one of the Country’s largest shipbuilding operations having strong connections to both naval and sea merchant operations. Since Southwark was the largest settlement during this period on the south bank of the Thames immediately opposite and administratively part of London, it would also have been a center of activity for industries and fisheries related to the Thames estuary, itself.
The next most prevalent group of occupations was that associated with wool processing and hat making. There are several interrelated trades and crafts which were necessary for the production of felt as aggregated in Table 3-4. Not all of these trades and crafts were entirely dependent on the Southwark felt hat industry. But, given the prominence of felt making existent in Southwark at this time period, it seems likely that all of these crafts and trades had some interdependence with the felt hat industry. In spite of the somewhat generic term “felt maker”, in Southwark in the 17th and 18th centuries the felt maker had become almost synonymous with the manufacture of felt hats. For some reason unknown to the author Southwark had emerged during this period as a center for the making of felt hats, a commodity which was in widespread usage among all levels of society. Eventually the popularity of felt hats temporarily gave way to a preference for silk hats among the wealthy elite, but regained prominence after a decline in demand for silk hats, and remains in vogue to present times.
The process known as “felting” involves the forming of a fabric-like cloth from sheep’s wool or other animal hairs without spinning or weaving, but by simply overlaying the loose fibers to form mats or “bats” which are then pressed into a cohesive, compressed matrix of fibers using water, heat and applied pressure. Felting is an ancient process in England predating the Saxon period. The manufacture of hats from felted wool at Southwark predates Queen Elizabeth I as evidenced by the following extract:
“this term [gentlemen journeymen hatters] is by tradition ascribed to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, who on her memorable journey to Tilbury (shortly before the destruction of the Spanish Armada by the English), passing down Holborn Hill, saw in the valley a great congregation of well-dressed men wearing polished beaver hats; these were hatters from the neighboring district of Blackfriars and Southwark, which [Southwark] was then as it is today the centre of the hatting industry of London…”
Further, as it was observed in a 1576 petition by the Feltmaker Company to the Lord Mayor of London:
“That those of this trade were four hundred households, dispersed and resident in sundry parts of the City and Suburbs as Southwark, Catherines and other places.”
Table 14 indicates an average of 60 births per year specifically to feltmakers. Assuming that a feltmaker’s family averaged about one birth every four years, this would suggest that during this ten-year period Southwark may have had an average of almost 250 households occupied by a feltmaker. Based on the approximate number of feltmaker households in the London area in the 1576 petition of 400, the preceding calculation would clearly support the notion that St. Olave’s parish embodied the center of this industry. For a comparison, a random sampling of the year 1640 indicates a total of 132 births to feltmakers. This random sample from 1640 clearly establishes the long-term existence of the feltmaking industry in St. Olave’s parish.
Although not to the same extent as feltmaking, the crafts and trades associated with shoemaking also appeared in St. Olave’s during this period as evidenced by the data contained in Table 3-5. In a random sampling of the year 1686 there were tallied a total of 16 shoemaker christenings in St. Olave’s, suggesting that this craft also had been established for several decades. Using the same average births of one every four years as was applied to feltmakers, there could have been upwards of 90 households in St. Olave’s parish occupied by shoemakers during this time period. This seems an inordinately high number of shoemakers for such a relatively small population, so it seems probable that shoemaking was a craft centered in St. Olave’s parish for sales outside the district, probably in London.
There were petitions filed with the court in Surrey County in 1622 by Southwark leatherdressers complaining of the “Dutchmen” in their borough allegedly operating in violation of the Company’s apprenticeship practices. While not definitive, this suggests that the large immigration of Dutch and Walloons to Southwark during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I had introduced a skilled foreign workforce which likely led to the introduction of increased competition for certain trades and crafts. Many of the immigrants were skilled in a variety of crafts and trades, which the Crown viewed as a potential asset to the English economy and to society in general. However, as suggested by the leatherdresser’s petition, the increased competition posed by this influx of foreigners was not always welcomed by the English citizenry. It seems probable that the semblance of a shoemaking industry in St. Olave’s parish might in part be attributed to the Dutch and Walloon settlement within this community.
In addition to the few selected trades and crafts analyzed hereinbefore, there was also present in St. Olave’s parish a relatively large number of occupations associated with the production and processing of food and beverages as shown in Table 3-6. Several of these occupations were associated with baking and may well have been employed at the Bridge House Yard, which contained the granaries and twelve ovens for the production of bread for the poor of London.
There were also found a large number of specialty trades and crafts, which probably produced goods for support directly to the St. Olave’s and Southwark community as displayed in Figure 3-7. Some of these crafts such as coopers and blacksmiths, also existed in sufficiently large numbers as to suggest that they may have been in secondary support to the seafaring activities of Southwark. The relatively large number of tailors in St. Olave’s may also suggest the presence of another minor industry in the community.
Lastly in this analysis of the various trades and crafts existing in St. Olave’s Parish were those occupations associated with the building trades and crafts. These occupations are of particular interest to this genealogical research since they embody the occupations of our central characters: Edward and Richard Arterbury.
Table 18 contains a tabulation of these building or construction related occupations. From the information presented earlier regarding the typical workforce employed in maintenance, operation and repair of the Bridge House Estate properties it was shown that carpenters and masons comprised a significant component of this workforce. From the author’s tally of building related trades presented in Table 3-8 it is particularly noteworthy that there were an average of less than one christening per year to a mason’s family. To be more precise, these masons who christened children during this ten-year period are named in chronological sequences as follows: 1706: Thomas Wise [II], 1707: James Blake, 1708: William Bullock and Thomas Wise [II], 1710: James Blake and William Bullock, 1713: William Bullock, and 1715: Edward Atterbury.
James Blake was apprenticed to Thomas Wise II on 14Jun1695. James’ father, John Blake, was described on this apprenticeship indenture as a “yeoman of Cheam, Surrey County”. William Bullock was apprenticed to Thomas Wise II on 12Nov1699. It is interesting to note that all three masons recorded as christening children in St. Olave’s during this ten-year period: James Blake, William Bullock and Edward Arterbury, had been apprenticed to Thomas Wise II. Of further point of interest is the fact that James Blake and Edward Arterbury were apprenticed to Thomas Wise II within one year of each other, and that both their fathers reported themselves as having been of Cheam, Surrey County. This may have been coincidence, but strongly suggestive that John Blake and Richard Arterbury may have known one another.
Given that the only masons recorded christening children at St. Olaves between 1706 and 1715 had served their apprenticeships under Thomas Wise II is further evidence of the likelihood that these men were all employees of Thomas Wise II. Given that they all settled in St. Olaves Parish further suggests that they were all employed through the Bridge House Trust in the maintenance of London Bridge and on other projects undertaken by Thomas Wise II, including St. Paul’s Cathedral, Winchester Palace and Chelsea Hospital.
If Edward Arterbury was a resident of St. Olaves Parish during his apprenticeship, it would follow that he must have developed an attachment to this thriving and bustling suburb of London. After Thomas Wise II completed his contract on St. Paul’s Cathedral in about 1708, it seems logical that Edward Arterbury may have been induced to return to St. Olaves, a community with which he must have been intimately acquainted. At the time of Edward’s return to Southwark his son, William, would have been only about 1 and 1/2 years old. William would have reached school age in about 1717, having lived in Southwark for almost four years. It seems probable that William Atterbury [the Immigrant] and his older brother, Edward Jr., would have been enrolled in St. Olave’s Grammar School which was situated on the south side of Tooley Street directly opposite the entrance to Bridge House. This school is believed to have been the only public school in existence in St. Olave’s Parish during this time period. The school was established by a bequest from the estate of a local brewer, Henry Leeks of Southwark in 1560 described in the following extract:
“In 1560, Henry Leeke, of Southwark, beer brewer, who lived at the foot of London Bridge, by Pepper Alley, gave by will certain money towards setting on foot and maintaining a free school in St. Olave’s parish, or in St. Saviour’s. He may be, therefore, considered the founder, or rather the first to propose the foundation of the school. He probably moved the parish in the same direction. So, 13th November the same year, the vestry resolved that the churchwardens and others should seek to know the goodwill and benevolence of the parish, what they would give toward setting up and maintaining a free school. Fair response resulted, gifts in perpetuity among the rest. Another liberal brewer, out of lands at Fastall Place, in St. Olave’s, gave 4₤ a year, and l0s for an annual sermon. The vestry now, on 22Jul1561, orders that the churchwardens should receive Mr. Leeke’s gift, and “prepare a schoolmaster to teach the poor men’s children to read and write and cast accounts, to prepare and make ready the church hall with benches and seats and all things necessary against Michelmas next.” The church hall appears to have been the old Jesus Gild Hall, and the vestry of the parish.”
“In 1567 the vestry resolves to make it a “free” school to be established by authority; an act could not be obtained, so the Queen, by letters patent, 1671, orders that from thenceforth there shall be a grammar school, to be called “The Free Grammar School’ of Queen Elizabeth of the parishioners of the parish of St. Olave, in the county of Surrey.”
“The patent recited that the inhabitants of the parish had, at no little cost, labour, and charge, ordained that children of inhabitants, as well rich as poor, should be instructed in grammar, accidence, and other low books—that sixteen of the most discreet and honest inhabitants should be governors…”
“In process of time our gatehouse [of Falstaff Palace] or its belongings became the property of a religious gild or fraternity, the Brotherhood of Jesus of St. Olave’s. The Richard Panell and others who took part in the transfer of the land, in 1520, to James Denton, parson of St. Olave’s, for a cemetery, were no doubt masters and wardens, or otherwise connected with the brotherhood of Jesus. Upon the suppression of the gilds, this land, probably by the act of Richard Panell and the others, came into the hands of the parish of St. Olave’s, and was converted, part into a cemetery, part into a vestry hall and a school. Entries in the church books, 1552-1554, show the connexion :”
“Here, now, is our grammar school, down Smith’s Alley, south of it by Tooley Street. Against its very wall was the Flemish burial-ground, north of it, close also, the new parish burial-ground, north of that just over the way the old churchyard, now too full to serve any longer. From 1589 to 1592, Robert Browne, domestic chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk, a reformer, religious leader, and founder of the Brownists, was master at St. Olave’s School. [Note: Robert Browne was not the chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk. The Duke’s chaplain was actually the exiled Marian minister, John Browne.]
The school continued in Churchyard Alley, where it began, until the railways and the new London Bridge drove it from place to place, and paid well each time for so doing. It is said, and really appears to be one of the best conducted schools in the kingdom; and instead of the few boys and petites first admitted, has now nearly 600, soon to be increased to at least 700, children.”
The scholars are to be of the parish, but others are to be admitted, in all, to the number of 100; they are to be of that age and towardness as to read English well, to write a legible hand, and to be fit to be entered in accidence or grammar, or in Latin, at the least; the boy’s friends must engage to provide for him all things fit for his learning—a little Bible or Psalm-book, other books, paper, pens, ink, satchel, candles in winter, wholesome and handsome clothing beseeming his estate, and to take care of his body; they are to let the master know if he cannot come, that the school and masters may not be blamed for the parents’ fault; and lest it should cause the undoing of the child, the parents are reminded that the care of him at dinner-time/ supper-time, &c., rests with them; that he must not frequent naughty company, which may infect his conversation and hurt his body or health; if they neglect this, he will lose the master’s virtuous directions, and will learn to take no care, nor make conscience of any nurture.”
Edward Jr. and William Arterbury very likely attended St. Olave’s Grammar School until sometime in 1720, when it appears that their father moved the family across the river to Dowgate Ward. At the time of their removal from St. Olave’s Edward Jr. would have attained the modern equivalence of the 6th Grade, whereas William would likely have been in the 4th Grade. Presumably, Edward and William would thereafter have been enrolled in a grammar school somewhere in the vicinity of St. Lawrence Pountney Parish. From the description provided above, it seems likely that Edward and William would have received an elementary education in reading, writing and ciphering, and perhaps some exposure to Latin and religious teachings. In the author’s review of the occupations present in St. Olave’s Parish between 1706 and 1715 it was discovered that there were an average of 1.5 christenings per year to a schoolmaster’s household, suggesting the presence of upwards of 5 to 6 schoolmasters living in the parish. This number of schoolmasters would comport with the estimated student population of 100 to 150 pupils.
On 28Apr1721 Edward Arterbery [sic] was bound to Edmund Attwood, Master Waterman, at St. Saviour, Southwark. Because of the name spelling, date and location, this record was almost certainly for Edward Arterbury Jr., the son of Edward Arterbury, Mason. Edward Arterbury Jr. would have been only 12 years and one month old when he was apprenticed a waterman. This would have been a very young age for a waterman apprentice, as most were not apprenticed until the age of 16 years. It is even more remarkable when considering that the rules of the Waterman Company prohibited an apprenticed son of a “landman” from independently operating a boat until the age of 17 years. This meant that Edmund Attwood would have been responsible for Edward Arterbury Jr.’s maintenance and training for almost five years before Edward would have been old enough to earn fares on his own. Until the age of 17 Edward Arterbury could only row a boat under the direct supervision of a certified waterman.
Edward Arterbury Sr. was, himself, apprenticed to Thomas Wise II at the age of 12 years and seven months. Based on his own experience, Edward Arterbury, Mason, may have felt that this was an appropriate age for his eldest son to be apprenticed. Whatever the motivation, it seems that Edward Jr. was apprenticed into a physically-demanding trade at an extraordinarily young age. The average cost for a waterman apprenticeship was about 1.5 to 2₤, perhaps one of the cheapest apprenticeships to be had at that time. It is worth noting that it seems probable Elizabeth Young, Edward Arterbury’s wife, was the daughter of a Waterman. Elizabeth’s father is believed to have been William Young, and her grandfather to have been John Young, both watermen from St. Saviour Parish. Watermen had a long history of passing their trade along to descendant generations of male offspring. It may have been a combination of the relatively low cost of a waterman indenture as well as the family tradition, which prompted the selection of the Waterman Company for Edward Arterbury Jr.
At the time of their father’s death in Sep1722 Edward Jr. would have been about 13-1/2 years old, whereas William would have been barely 11 years and Charles only 8-1/2 years. Their sister, Jane, still would have been in her infancy at barely two years old. It seems probable that Edward Arterbury Sr. may have continued to be employed by the Bridge House Estate until his death. This is made probable by the close geographic proximity of Dowgate Ward to Bridge Ward.
As a journeyman mason, Edward Arterbury would have earned a respectable living, but his demise at the relatively young age of 38 years 5 months probably did not allow him to accumulate much of a personal estate. It seems doubtful that he would have owned any real estate, and probably paid rent his entire adult life. However, the fact that his widow, Elizabeth Arterbury, was able to continue living in their same home for four years following her husband’s death suggests that Edward Arterbury must have been able to leave his wife and children with some means of support. It is conceivable that, following his demise, Edward’s family may have received a small annuity from Bridge House Estate. It is also possible that his widow may have received some assistance from Edward’s younger brother, Richard, who was still living in 1736 when he petitioned for admission of his son, Abraham, to the Company of Carpenters via patrimony. Richard Arterbury was a successful carpenter, who managed to establish all three of his sons: William, Richard Jr. and Abraham as apprentice carpenters. It seems entirely possible that Richard may have become the guardian of one or more of his nephews upon the death of his brother, Edward Sr. No other records were found for William Arterbury’s siblings: Charles or Jane, beyond their christening records. However, an apprenticeship binding and marriage record were found for Edward Arterbury Jr.
There was a Fleet Prison marriage record found for a William Arterbery, bachelor and Mariner, of Christ Church Parish Southwark marrying Hannah Serimpton [Scrimpton?], widow of Christ Church Parish, Southwark on 16Feb1731/2. Given the residential location, date and name spelling connected with the William in this record, the author believes it highly probable that this William Atterbury was the son of Edward Arterbury and Elizabeth Young, and the same William Atterbury transported to Maryland colony in Mar1733/4. Additionally, there was another Fleet Prison marriage record found for William Atterbung [sic], batchelor and Waterman marrying Elizabeth Good, widow of Christ Church on 7Sep1732. Given the name, places, date and occupation similarities, the author is inclined to believe that this record was for the same person as William Arterbery recorded in the earlier marriage record to Hannah Scrimpton. This marriage occurred just five months before William Atterbury was arrested for the theft of Linsey-Woolsey. There is a detailed discussion of these marriages in Chapter 4 – The Young William.
Based on the occupations reported in these marriage records for William Arterbery/Atterbury, it was possible to locate an apprenticeship record dated 31Jul1727 binding William Arterbury to John Filce, Master Waterman, at St. Saviour, Southwark. William Arterbury would have just turned 16 years of age when he was apprenticed, an age more consistent with the typical waterman apprentice at time of binding. The date of this apprenticeship was one year after Elizabeth Atterbury disappeared from the Dowgate Ward tax rolls. It is unknown to the author whether William’s mother was still alive when he was apprenticed to John Filce. The fact that William variously reported his occupation as mariner or waterman was not uncommon for the waterman trade, as they were by act of parliament subject to being impressed into the navy or merchant marines.
Thus ends the quest for Edward Arterbury’s ancestry and biographical history. In the next chapter we will explore the history of Edward’s brother, Richard Arterbury, carpenter, and his descendants, along with that of Edward’s and Richard’s ancestors back to their oldest known roots in Surrey County.
ADDENDUM: Until only recently the whereabouts of Elizabeth Young Arterbury after 1726 was unknown to the author. Initially the author hypothesized that Elizabeth may have remarried, or perhaps moved back across the Thames to Southwark to be nearer to members of her family. It was not until the morning of 29Sep2014 that the author stumbled upon two burial records dated 15Jan1747 for an Elizabeth Atterbury, almost certainly the widow of Edward Arterbury summarized as follows:
- 15Jan1747, St. Mary Abchurch, London, Elizabeth Atterbury, Pensioner, was buried.
- 15Jan1747, St. Mary, Newington, Southwark, Surrey, Elizabeth Atterbury was buried.
It seems highly probable that these burial records were for the same person, namely Elizabeth Atterbury, widow of Edward Arterbury (mason) and mother of William Atterbury, American immigrant. There are several facts associated with these records that connect with Elizabeth Young Atterbury, widow of Edward Arterbury:
- Edward Arterbury (mason) was recorded as being buried at St. Lawrence Pountney on 23Nov1722. St. Lawrence Pountney Church was burned in the Great Fire of 1666 and never rebuilt. The Parish of St. Lawrence Pountney was subsumed by the nearby Parish of St. Mary Abchurch. Given that the St. Lawrence Pountney church did not exist in Nov1722, it seems highly likely that Edward was actually buried at St. Mary Abchurch.
- The fact that the one burial record for Elizabeth Atterbury indicates that she was also buried at St. Mary Abchurch is strong evidence of her having been the widow of Edward Arterbury.
- The fact that Elizabeth was recorded as a pensioner is further suggestion of Edward ’s widow, as Edward very likely worked for Bridge House Estate and very likely received a pension for that employment.
- The fact that the second burial record for Elizabeth Atterbury wasfrom St. Mary Newington would indicate that she had in fact moved back across the Thames to around 1726/7 where she very likely resided until her death.
 The Registers of Morden, Surrey, Mr. F. Clayton, 1901, pg. 10.
 Ibid., pg. 11.
 Ibid., p. 12.
 Ibid., p. 27.
 Ibid., p. 27
 Ibid., p. 28.
 Ibid., p. 33.
 Ibid., p. 34.
 http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=LMAearlyparish&rank=1&new=1&MSAV=1&msT=1&gss=angs-d&gsfn=eliz*&gsln=young&msbdy=1680&msbpn__ftp=surrey&dbOnly=_F0005A49%7c_F0005A49_x%2c_F00058A6%7c_F00058A6_x&uidh=yq3&msbdp=10&pcat=34&fh=2&h=546663&recoff=8+9+28+40, accessed 15Jan2013.
 http://search.ancestry.com/iexec?htx=View&r=an&dbid=1624&iid=31280_198023-00094&fn=William&ln=Young&st=r&ssrc=pt_t51881209_p13343386129_kpidz0q3d13343386129z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgplz0q3dpid&pid=1526965, accessed 15Jan2013.
 Survey of London, Volume XXII, Bankside, Sir Howard Roberts and Walter F. Godfrey, 1950, pp. 94-101.
 Ibid., p.
 Ibid., p. 98
 Ibid., pp. 100-101.
 The Fleet Registers, John Southernden Burn, 1833, pp. 7-8.
 King’s Master Masons, W. J. Williams, 2003, pp. 41-42.
 From: ‘The borough of Southwark: Introduction’, A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), pp. 125-135. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43041 Date accessed: 30 November 2012.
 John Strype’s Survey of London, 1720.
 History of the Tower Bridge and Other…, Charles Welch, F.S.A., J. Wolfe Barry, Rev. Canon Benham, 1894, p. 82.
 History of the Worshipful Company of the Art and Mistery of Feltmakers of London, J. H. Hawkins, 1917, p. 20.
 Ibid., p. 34.
 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, James I, Edited by Mary Anne Everett Green, 1858, p. 334.
 Old Southwark and its People, William Rendele, 1878, p. 252.
Ibid, p. 250.
 Ibid., p. 256-7.
 http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/bmdr/fulldetails.php?id=60721044, accessed 13Jan2013.
 http://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/bmdr/fulldetails.php?id=60286881, accessed 15Jan2013.