Merchant, Tailor,
Adventurer
Or
Rags to
Riches
The
Biography of Jean Louis Bazalgette
By
Charles
Bazalgette
Jean Louis Bazalgette was born
in the south of France but went to London, became tailor to the Prince of Wales
and made a huge fortune.
This biography is meant to be
as readable as possible, so although there are a few quoted passages, notes and
references are not supplied. The
chronology section will contain not only far greater detail but sources and
references as well. It is always a work
in progress. Although it has been made
freely available on the web, this work is original and is copyright, so please
do not use this material without achnowledgement (for small extracts) or
without permission (for larger passages).
©
Charles Bazalgette 2006-2008
* * *
The origins of the Bazalgette name
and family are, accurately to use a well-worn phrase, the stuff of legend. The
stories have been often told but they are included here for the sake of
completeness.
The story goes that one of Charlemagne’s
generals, a Spaniard by the name of Miralles, achieved a notable victory over
the Moors, and was rewarded with the Moorish sobriquet ‘Baz-al-Get’
which apparently means ‘Eagle of Victory’. This is reminiscent of the story of
‘El Cid’. Miralles was also granted
lands in Gévaudan,
which is now Lozère,
and made his home at the place which is still called La Bazalgette, which lies
in the high country about midway between Mende and Ispagnac. There is another view about the name - that
it is a diminutive of a local dialect word basalge, meaning a basilica,
and I have to say that this more prosaic origin sits just as well with me. The name Ispagnac, formally Espagnac,
suggests a Spanish connection, although these ‘-ac’ endings are reputed to come
from the Latin, or perhaps Latinised, ‘-acum’, much like ‘Eboracum’, the Roman
name for York.
There is recorded by St. Allais a
noble family, Bazalgette de Charnève, now extinct, but whose ancient château still stands at Bourg St. Andëol.
The arms of this family are:
Parti: au 1., d’argent, à la fasce de gueules, chargée de
trois croissants montants de champ, accompagnée d’un étendard
de gueules, semé de croisettes d’or, mis en bande et en pointe, de trois merlettes de
sable, et d’une moucheture d’hermine du même, en abîme;
au chef d’azur, chargé de deux croix, trefflées
d’or: au 2., d’or, au lion de gueules, armé et lampassé de
sinople, couronné d’argent, tenant de sa patte dextre un sabre du même,
garni d’or. Couronne de comte.
The
‘croissants’ present to me an image of those buttery pastries that the
French like with their morning coffee, but as ‘crescents’ they tend to
reinforce the Moorish story. The simpler arms granted later to Louis’s family
by the British College of Arms were:
Argent, on a fess gules
three crescents of the field, on a chief azure two crosses fleury or
There is no known connection in the
last four hundred years between the Charnève Bazalgettes and ours, although it may
exist. That there is a connection seems
to be universally accepted, and variations of the Charnève arms were granted to Jean Louis,
and later to Sir Joseph Bazalgette when he was knighted. The view held by researchers in the Cévennes is that the source of all the
Bazalgette families is the hamlet of La Bazalgette, and this may well be so.
The earliest proven ancestor of Jean
Louis Bazalgette is Claude Bazalgette of Ispagnac, whose marriage has not been
found in the registers. It appears that
there were several Bazalgette families in Ispagnac, but because of gaps in the
registers, no line can be traced further back with certainty at present. Claude and his wife Marie Rainal had three
known children between November 1682 and
October 1685. These
were Jeanne, baptized on the 22nd
December 1682, Etienne, baptized on the 22nd November 1683 and
Pierre, baptized on the 24th October 1685. Pierre we know became a tailleur, although the family
tradition of tailoring may go even further back than this. He married Louise
Grignard, the daughter of Jacques Grignard and Marie Privat, on the 21st
May, 1707. Their son Etienne, Jean
Louis’ father, was baptized on the 13th July, 1709.
Jeanne Deleuze’s grandparents were Antoine
Deleuze and Antoinette Salanson and their son Georges married Anne Carcasson,
daughter of Gabriel Carcasson and Louise Amat, on the 20th July
1713. Their daughter Jeanne was
baptized on the 26th May, 1715, and she married Etienne Bazalgette
on the 5th February 1732.
Both families must have been well set up, and judging by the size of
Jeanne’s dowry, the Deleuzes were very comfortably off.
Jean Louis, the
youngest son of Etienne Bazalgette and his wife Jeanne Deleuze, was born in
Ispagnac, Cévennes, France, a village of about 300 ‘hearths’, on 5th
October 1750. In the Cévenol tradition, the family was probably Protestant,
although of the closet sort, since Roman Catholicism was the only legal
religion at the time. Therefore the
baby was christened in the Catholic church, although after leaving France Louis
always adhered to the Protestant religion. The register entry says:
Jean Louis Bazalgette fils legitime et naturel á Etienne Bazalgette et
Jeanne Deleuze mariés a Ispagnac est né Ie 5 octobre 1750 et a été baptisé le 6
meme mois et an, son parrain Sr Privat Salançon procureur de Me Jean Louis
Robert de St Philip clerc tonsuré, sa marraine demoiselle Marianne Robert
epouse de Sr Lacombe marchand presents.
In other words, Louis was
baptized the day after his birth, and his godfather was Privat Salançon
(Salançon was a local name, also that of Jeanne Deleuze’s grandmother), who
acted as the representative of the priest Jean Louis Robert. Procureur
usually means an attorney, but I am assuming it was used here in the non-legal
sense. Perhaps our Jean Louis was named after him. His godmother was also a
Robert, so possibly related to the priest, and was the wife of the merchant
Lacombe. Etienne was described as a tailleur d’habits or a tailor of suits,
which in modern times is just called a tailleur.
He was also a tisserand or texier which means he wove at least some
of the cloth for the clothes he made.
Chief among these was apparently a cloth called cadiz described as a ‘time-honoured wool fabric, slightly milled,
peculiar to Languedoc’.
The
houses of Ispagnac are substantial, built of limestone blocks and schist from
the causses above, and are mostly of
three or more storeys. It is therefore
very likely that the house where the family lived still exists. Further study at the Mende archives may show
property transactions, which will help to identify the building. There is an unfortunate story, which tells
what happened to the town records:
“La Révolution bouleverse
le village en 1790. Un curé constitutionnel est envoyé en 1791 mais, rejeté par
la population, il ne restera pas. Le clocher est démoli, les archives brûlées
sur la place en 1793.”
This
burning of the village archives is very bad news for us. The curé
constitutionnel was a revolution-appointed official imposed upon the
village. It is not clear whether the
bell and archives were destroyed as a reprisal for the villagers rejecting the curé constitutionnel, or just as a
reaction on the part of the townspeople to this official interference.
Jean Louis (or Louis, as he
always later called himself) was the youngest of four known children: Pierre
(born 11 April 1739), Marie (born 23 March 1743) and Georges (born 1746) and
was thus 11 years younger than his eldest sibling. His father Etienne was born
on the 13th July 1709 but died on 22nd September 1757, a
week before Louis’ seventh birthday.
Louis’ father and his grandfather were both tailors so the family had a
well-established business in Ispagnac.
There would have been enough family members to teach the boy the tailoring
business, even though his father died so early. His grandfather Pierre would have been 75 at the time of Louis’
birth and therefore probably was also not around to help with Louis’ education. We can be sure that Louis was a smart lad
and would have picked up whatever there was to learn very quickly. The apprenticeship for a general tailor was
three years, so there is no doubt that Louis was well versed in all aspects of
the business before he left home.
Family stories tell us that
Louis left Ispagnac in 1768-70 at the age of 18 or 20. What he did then has been construed in a
variety of fanciful accounts. It has
been suggested that he left home to escape military service in the milice, but this is very unlikely. France was not at war at this time, nor had
there been any notable civil insurrections in the region, such as those of the Camisards, for fifty years. If he had been selected for the milice, he would have been allowed to
stay at home and his duties would have been no more arduous than attending the
odd parade.
Jean Bazalgette, a descendant
of Louis’ elder brother Georges, who was a journalist and used the pen-name
‘Jean Bazal’, wrote what he called a roman, which purports to be Louis’
life story. While entertaining and full
of action it seems to have little relation to fact. I am not going to spend much time and space in attempting to
refute Jean Bazal’s version of events, because this is very obviously
fictitious. According to Bazal, Louis ran away to escape the draft and lurked in
the mountains for seven years or so before appearing in 1777 to accompany the
Marquis de Lafayette on his voyage to America.
Apart from the lack of necessity to avoid the draft, which I have
already mentioned, Lafayette’s memoirs tell us that he was accompanied on the Victoire by the Marquis de Kalb and some
12 French officers – it does not look as if there would have been a place for a
draft-dodger. As these officers were
carefully chosen it is unlikely that Louis could have been posing as one of
them under an assumed name, and the manifests of the port of Bordeaux record no
Bazalgettes embarking there during that period.
Although it is possible that Louis travelled to the Americas as a young man, there seems to be little time for him to have done so between 1770 and 1775. My view is that in order to have established himself as a tailor and a silk merchant by 1775, Louis could not have been gallivanting about the Caribbean or North America for five years. He had to have been learning his trade, building up clientele and connections and getting his business firmly established. I therefore think it is most likely that he served an apprenticeship as a tailor, probably starting at an early age, such that by the age of eighteen he was well versed in the business. I think it was Jean Bazal who mentioned that ‘he exchanged wool for silk’, and this was fairly obviously the case. He is very likely to have entered a firm of silk merchants or high-class tailors. Although Ispagnac was more ‘wool’ country, the Cévennes at that time was still a silk producing area of France, so Louis would have had no difficulty in learning about the silk business, although silk production was at the opposite end of the Cévennes region. It is likely that Louis found his way to Lyon, which was the silk production capital of France and was not very far away from Ispagnac. Perhaps after a year or so in Lyon he graduated to Paris and began exporting silks and maybe finished garments to England. He probably travelled to England several times before deciding to settle there. There is certainly evidence that he had trading connections with Paris, and his daughter Louisa was placed in a convent there later. He had dealings with the bankers Perregaux, who later became the famous house of Lafitte.
Part II
Louis Bazalgette arrived in London and set up shop in about 1775.
We can estimate this date from the following facts:
When interviewed by the
Parliamentary Commission looking into the Prince of Wales’ debts in 1795, Louis
said he had been in England for 20 years and had worked for the prince for 17
years. This means he arrived in England in 1775. Louis himself said later that
he served the Prince of Wales for over 32 years. There are few records in the royal household of transactions with
Louis after 1795. So if he started to work for the prince in 1779, when the
latter was coming on eighteen, he would have ‘served’ less as a tailor and more
as a bondholder in the later years from 1795 until about 1810. He may well have
sold his tailoring business around 1801 and thenceforth concentrated on other
types of enterprise.
In
order to be recommended to the Prince of Wales, Louis must have been well
connected. He seems to have been the Prince’s
principal tailor, at least in the earlier years. In a court case reported in The
Times in 1794, characteristically to recover a debt, he described himself
as ‘Taylor to the Prince of Wales’. No other accounts seem to mention him at
all, stating that John Weston was the prince’s favourite tailor, but this is
probably the case later. Louis would
have had an efficient operation importing the finest silks from France, and
probably linens and other cloth from Amsterdam. He probably would have designed the outfits himself, and had them
made up in his own workshop by a staff of tailors and finishers. He stated
himself that he always delivered the clothes personally to Carlton House. One
theory I hold is that Louis may have been supplying costumes to the London
theatres. While in earlier times actors had been content with costumes handed
down from the nobility, they were by now demanding ever more exotic custom-made
outfits to make a splash on stage. On April 24th, 1781, Prince George
wrote to his brother Frederick in Hanover, in response to the latter’s requests
for some special suits of clothes, which he could not obtain locally.
"Ye hair in ye chain is mine. Yr Vandyke dress is compleat and beautiful;
ye hat for it I have ordered of Cater; it was made by ye tailor of Covent
Garden Theatre. Ye ruff belonging to it
is separate from ye whole and ties with two little white strings and
tassels. I do not mean it is a ruff but
lace; it is an imitation only, but very beautiful and in ye shape of our shirt
collars, only deeper. Remember yr shirt
collar or stock must not appear in this dress; you had therefore best not wear
any stock at all & tuck your collar down or under."
He adds in a later letter that the
Vandyke dress was sent and also one of lilac "with pale buff puffs and
knots" because "we considered yt if there was to be a masquerade in
ye summer season you could not well wear yt dress." We have not so far
been able to discover if Louis was ‘ye tailor of Covent Garden Theatre’. If he was, it would certainly have brought
him to the attention of the prince, who was an avid theatregoer.
An anecdote has just come to light,
which may tell us how Louis found his way into the Prince’s favour. It was printed in an American publication, The Eclectic
Magazine in 1874, reported by a Dr. Chambers. This was either Robert or
William Chambers, two Scottish brothers who are mainly famous for their
Cyclopedia and Dictionary, but who also published many books of anecdotes which
made useful magazine stories.
A FORTUNE MADE BY A
WAISTCOAT.--- Some people have a fancy for fine waistcoats. This taste was more common in my young days
than it is now. Stirring public events
were apt to be celebrated by patterns on waistcoats to meet the popular
fancy. I remember that the capture of
Mauritius, at the close of 1810, was followed by a fashion for wearing
waistcoats speckled over with small figures shaped like that island, and called
Isle of France waistcoats. George,
Prince of Wales, while Regent, was noted for his affection for this rich
variety of waistcoats, and thereby hangs a tale. His Royal Highness had an immense desire for a waistcoat of a
particular kind, for which he could discover only a small piece of stuff
insufficient in dimensions. It was a
French material, and could not be matched in England. The war was raging, and to procure the requisite quantity of
stuff from Paris was declared to be impracticable. At this juncture one of the Prince’s attendants interposed. He said he knew a Frenchman, M.Bazalgette,
carrying on business in one of the obscure streets of London, who, he was
certain, would undertake to proceed to Paris and bring away what was
wanted. This obliging tailor was
forthwith commissioned to do his best to procure the requisite material. Finding that a chance had occurred for
distinguishing himself and laying the foundation of his fortune, the Frenchman
resolved to make the attempt. It was a
hazardous affair, for there was no regular communication with the coast of
France, unless for letters under a cartel.
Yet, Bazalgette was not daunted.
If only he could land safely in a boat, all would be right. This, with some difficulty and manoevering,
he effected. As a pretended refugee
back to his own country, he was allowed to land and proceed to Paris. Joyfully he was able to procure the quantity
of material required for the Prince Regent’s waistcoat; and not less joyfully
did he manage to return to London with the precious piece of stuff wrapped
round his person. The waistcoat was
made, and so was the tailor’s fortune and that of his family.
[The Eclectic
Magazine, Vol XIX, Jan to June 1874, W.H.Bidwell (Ed)]
This story is fascinating for
several reasons. Not only is it the only anecdote I have so far seen which
names Louis, but it is believable, although probably somewhat dramatized, as it
conforms very well with the perception I had already formed of Louis’s
character and motivation. It would
presumably have happened around 1778-9, since after that Louis was established
as the Prince’s tailor and would not have had to be pointed out by ‘an
attendant’. The American War of
Independence had begun in 1775, and France and Spain seized the opportunity
also to declare war on England in 1778. It therefore fits that the ‘war was raging’
at the time this incident took place.
It is amusing that they could only find ‘a small piece of stuff,
insufficient in dimensions’, considering the Prince’s tendancy to portliness. We do not know yet in what ‘obscure street
of London’ Louis had his premises before 1779, but South Molton Street would
probably not have been regarded as ‘obscure’.
We can be quite sure that
Louis was established in London by 1779, because he took a house and shop at 18
South Molton Street, which remained his premises until 1785. On Saturday, Aug 14, 1779, Louis married
Catherine Métivier at the Anglican church of St. George's Hanover Square. The parish register entry reads "John
Louis Bazalgette and Catherine Métivier, a Minor, both of this Parish were
married in this Church by Licence by and with the consent of Philip Métivier
the natural and lawful father of the said Minor this fourteenth day of August
in the year 1779." The register
was signed by John Louis Bazalgette, Catherine Métivier, Philip Métivier, G.
Gaubert, Joseph (or John) Mead and Francis Bague. Catherine was a minor, i.e., under 21, but although we have not
found a record of her birth it is likely that she was twenty or less, based on
her parents’ marriage date. Philip (or Philipe) Métivier may have been related
to Paul Métivier, a merchant in London, who dealt in furs, cloth, wool, hat
making materials, etc. between about 1760 and 1783. He figures in the Hudson’s
Bay Company’s list of buyers at their London Fur auctions. Paul was naturalised
in 1762. Philipe was initially
described as a wool merchant and spinner, later as a haberdasher and hosier,
living and doing business at 29 New Bond Street. Catherine’s mother was
Françoise (otherwise the Anglicised ‘Frances’) Reine Daugis, and she and
Philipe had been married on the 24th September 1759, at St George
Hanover Square. Louis must have come to know the Métiviers through his own
business as a tailor. It is also
possible that Métivier was Louis’s first contact in London and helped him get
started there, although this is only a guess.
All the
witnesses at Louis and Catherine’s wedding were involved in the rag trade, the
most notable being Guillaume Gaubert, who lived just up the street from Louis at No 12 South Molton Street. Among the papers of William Henry
Cavendish Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland, there is a letter from Monsieur
Gaubert of which a summary follows:
The
letter is dated 23 August 1776 and is written in French. The letter is from
Monsieur Gaubert, 12 South Moulton Street, London, to W.H. Cavendish-Bentinck.
It refers to difficulties receiving 'le frac de drap de Silisie brodé'; says
the [assureurs?] could not get through as ships arriving from the Indies had
led customs officers to watch the mouth of the Thames and surrounding areas;
says the outfit arrived on Friday and the tailor refused it; says he is sending
a sample of 'drap de Silisie'. It says the tailor turned the outfit down with
regret, finding it [in] good [condition] and new; urges the duke, when he sees
it, to forget the unintentional wrong and not to turn it down; asks him to look
at it and if it is not as he has said or does not please him, undertakes to
keep it himself; asks, if it is returned to him, that care be taken not to
crease it and to maintain its freshness; asks for it be left at the hotel until
his return from France on 15 Oct. Asks that he send his instructions to Paris
and gives his address there.
It is interesting to
conjecture that the ‘tailor’ mentioned may have been Louis. Gaubert later became the Prince’s upholsterer
and decorator for Carlton House, and it is possible that Louis supplied him
with silk for decorating and upholstery.
Gaubert and Louis were obviously friends, and shared a connection with
the Prince, although whether one introduced the other is open to question. It is very likely that they both had
powerful patronage, which was the only way to get on in those days. Such a
patron may have been the Duc d’Orleans, who had considerable influence in
matters of fashion. Dorothy Stroud, in
her book Henry Holland, His Life and
Architecture, gives us this illuminating passage:
The Prince of Wales's
particular interest in France grew out of his close friendship with the Duc de
Chartres, who succeeded as the Duc d'Orleans in 1785. His wife's dowry had made
him the richest man in France, but his unorthodox social and political outlook
had already earned him the name of Philip Égalité. He was a frequent visitor to this country, was
elected a member of Brooks's and other London clubs, and shared the Prince's
fondness for Brighton. His great charm and generosity were overshadowed by
recklessness and profligacy in spite of, or perhaps because of, which the
Prince found him a boon companion, and for several years they trod the primrose
path together. When Mrs Fitzherbert, soon after her first meeting with the
Prince in 1784, fled to Paris to escape his advances, it was the Duc who acted
as intermediary, and prevailed on her to return.
Between them, the Prince and
the Duc had a marked effect on trade between their respective countries. Mme
Campan attributed to the latter the Anglomania
which, by his frequent visits, the Duc had brought about in his own
capital, while the Prince was entranced with Parisian goods of every kind, and
his accounts show an extensive patronage of French purveyors of ribbons and
lace, embroidery, scent, pomatum, fancy paper, waistcoats and underclothing,
apart from the more substantial wares that were soon to decorate Carlton House.
In view of this it is hardly
surprising to find that one of the earliest appointments in connection with
work on the building was that of a Frenchman, Guillaume Gaubert, who was taken
on as Clerk of the Works at £200 a year from 1783 while Chambers was still in
charge. Horace Walpole refers to him as 'Gobert who was a cook', but goes on to
say that he had previously been employed at Chatsworth as a decorator, and had
'painted the old pilasters of the court there pea-green' and 'was going to play
the devil' if he had not moved on. As the Duke of Devonshire was one of the
Prince's cronies, this indicates the probable course of Gaubert's progress from
the one household to the other. He seems from this time always to have spelt
his name thus, but if Walpole was right in giving its original version as
Gobert, he may have descended from the celebrated family of artists and
craftsmen who worked for the French court in the 17th and 18th centuries,
particularly at Fontainbleau and Versailles.
If there was any truth in the assertion that he had once been a cook,
this was probably to tide him over some difficult period, perhaps in his first
months as an emigré. By the 1790s he was
describing himself as William Gaubert of Panton Street, Maker of Ornamental
Furniture. As Clerk of the Works on the site his signature appears jointly with
Holland's on some of the early bills….
It is significant of the
revised ideas for the decorating and furnishing of Carlton House, which
developed in the course of 1786, that Guillaume Gaubert was given his congé in
the following spring. Understandably, he made strong protests in a letter
addressed to the Prince's 'trustees' (by which he probably meant the
comptroller and treasurer), pointing out that the results so far obtained by
his 'constant watching and keeping up the workmen steady to their Business
within my department. The same may be said of all the rest who had to do with
me alone and work'd after my drawings and not those of the upholsterers. A very
considerable saving was made or rather clear Benefit of 17 £p. cent... The same
observation will hold good in regard to all the upholstery work wherein I have
carried my attention to so scrupulous a nicety as to notice 4 yds. of cherry
coloured sattin which could not have been used.' He quoted instances of carpets from 'Mr Moore's Manufactury', and
other goods which he had obtained at reduced prices, and continued 'the time
saved by my constant attendance from morning to night on the workmen. . . the
several nights I have set up endeavouring in every circumstance to make myself
usefull, all these circumstances well weigh' d entitle me I think to a better
treatment than that offer'd to me by your order on Friday last.'! After another
long page, his flow of English, or the assistance of a translator, gave out,
and he lapsed into French for the final notes as to various curtains and
draperies on which he had recently worked.
Gaubert was well aware of
the intention at this time to introduce Daguerre as entrepreneur, and refers to meeting him 'en presence de Mr Holande'.
His protest at being displaced was, however, unavailing. Holland's assistant
John Jagger took over as Clerk of Works with responsibility for measuring and
making out the workmen's bills, and continued until his death in 1795. Gaubert
seems to have survived the disaster of dismissal, and later turns up in the
Report on the Prince's Debts of 1795 as William Gaubert of Panton Street, Maker
of Ornamental Furniture, with a claim for £1,133 19s. in respect of ‘ornaments
at Carlton House’.
Part III
Louis and Catherine’s first known
child was Louis, born on May 31, 1781, followed by Louisa on October 27th, 1782
and Joseph William on December 17th, 1783.
There may have been earlier miscarriages, or stillbirths of course, bearing
in mind the later frequency of children. These three children were not
christened until the 8th February, 1784, when they were all baptised
together at St. George’s, Hanover Square.
There are theories that the family were abroad during the intervening
period, and this is of course possible, but as the business continued to be at
South Molton Street this is quite unlikely.
In 1784, the family moved to a much grander house at 22 Lower Grosvenor
Street, and were certainly in residence by 3rd June, as the ratebook
shows. It is likely that having moved
they then decided to have the children christened but we cannot be sure why
there was a delay. On 15th December, 1784, Catherine’s last son,
John, was born, and christened at St. George’s Church on May 5th, 1785. Four children in three-and-a-half years
undoubtedly took a toll on Catherine’s health, because she died in the middle
of May, 1785 and was buried at St. Marylebone Parish Church on May 16th. This was the old parish church, which was
later demolished to make way for the new church, which still stands today on
Marylebone Road. A list of monumental
inscriptions from the inside of the old church does not mention Catherine, so
it seems she was buried outside in the churchyard. Some token tombstones survive, but not hers. Her son Louis died in infancy (also in 1785,
according to one account) and was reputedly buried in the same place, although
no record has been found.
I must confess to feeling a pang of
grief whenever I think of poor Catherine.
My great-great-great-great-grandmother died so young, possibly as young
as twenty-three, leaving three babies behind. It is impossible to know how
Louis coped with his loss and with caring for the motherless infants. No doubt he was working long hours and
travelling too, building up his business.
He would have had to find someone to look after the children, but we
know nothing about what arrangements were made.
Louis did not stay long at the South
Molton Street shop, probably because it was too small to hold a family and a burgeoning
business. 22, Lower Grosvenor Street
was a far more prestigious address, and the house consisted of four storeys and
a basement, with a large two-storey extension behind to accommodate a shop and
tailoring workshops. The property also included the mews house at the back (22,
Brooks Mews) and business access was from the rear, which preserved the
residential quality of the house.
There was another workshop at No. 22. Here a tailor, Louis Bazalgette, who occupied No. 22 Lower Grosvenor Street from 1784 to 1800, had a two-storey workshop over the coach-house and stables. It was lit principally from the side where a large window overlooked a passage leading off the mews, which was shared with No. 21. Behind the workshop were a counting-house and a 'shop', also entered from the passage. Both 'shop' and workshop communicated with the house in Grosvenor Street, which was able to retain its domestic appearance because the main access to the business premises was from the mews. Part of the passage remains but the mews buildings were rebuilt in 1898-9 at the same time as Nos. 21 and 22 Grosvenor Street.” [Survey of London].
I have a copy of a plan of the house and mews, from the archives of the Grosvenor Estates, prepared for ‘Mr Shepherd’ [Thomas Shepperd/Sheppard] in 1803 – i.e., two years after Louis left the property. This plan shows a tailor’s workshop in the mews at the back, over a horse stall, with a passage leading to a shop, presumably occupying what used to be the garden, behind the house itself. A small yard is beside it and a covered passage leads to the rear entrance of the house itself. The house frontage measured 20’2” and extended backwards 37’5”, with a small addition. This would have afforded the family about 4000 square feet of living space. The yard behind was about 20 feet square, but much of that space was taken up by sheds and the covered passage. The shop itself was on the first floor, over coal and other storage rooms, and was 15’9” by 47’ in length – thus about 750 square feet in area. Behind this, and connected to it, was the mews building with horse stalls and a carriage house below and a large tailor’s workshop above, measuring 17’2” x 46’ – about 785 square feet.
These premises were patently able to accommodate a good number of tailors and other garment workers as well as a storage area for what was no doubt a comprehensive stock of materials. We know that they were busy creating clothes for the Prince and his brothers, judging by the debts to Louis incurred by them. We do not know how large Louis’ clientele was in addition to this, but this royal patronage cannot have been bad for business. He never seems to have advertised. By 1785 the Prince alone was over £160,000 in debt, and the amount owed to Louis was mounting. When Parliament voted in 1787 to pay this debt, the proportion paid to Louis (in five instalments) was £16,774, which was by far the largest sum paid to any of the creditors. This sum is equivalent to almost £1.5 million at today’s values, and would be sufficient to make Louis a very wealthy man even at this point in his career. Not only did the Prince and his brothers continue to incur large debts for tailoring, but Louis also lent money to them and to others as time went on. Louis was the embodiment of the ‘snider’ – a regency buck slang term for a tailor who was not too insistent on payment and allowed clients to run up large bills on credit. As he grew richer he became increasingly a moneylender, a financier and a merchant. In this way he gained influence and power, not minding the odd debt which went wrong – it must all have been good business in Louis’ mind, taking him further towards his goal. However, as we will see later, he was not above going to court to get his money back.
…In principle, private loans were simple
affairs: a lender granted a borrower the use of a sum of money with the
conditions that interest be paid for the period of use and that the principal
be returned to the lender by a stipulated date. Between 1713 and 1800, the legal maximum rate of interest a
lender could charge in Britain was 5 %; in the colonies, 6% to 8%. Loans of cash or credit were debited from
the borrower's account in the lender's books; in exchange, the lender received
a promise to repay (an oral agreement or a promissory note), a bond, a
transferable court judgment, or a mortgage securing repayment with property.
The borrower's indebtedness was certified by a deed, and the deed was
registered with local officials… First
of all, lending was profitable. The associates usually lent at the maximum 5% rate in Britain and 6% or 8% in the
colonies. Such rates compared favorably
to the 4 % interest that navy and victualing bills paid, the 2 % to 7% average
rates of return they achieved through speculation in the Funds…. Lending also
created or cemented "power and influence." One, to exert control over
others, Samuel Johnson once instructed James Boswell, was to lend "sums of
money to your neighbours, perhaps at small interest, perhaps at no interest,
’privately’; always having their bonds in your possession." A lender gained a hold over the livelihood
of the borrower by such measures …
[David Hancock: Citizens of the World ]
Louis was in partnership with two others while trading as ‘Taylors and Drapers’ at the Lower Grosvenor Street property, and perhaps earlier, but we do not know when this partnership began. These partners were Peter Francis Denedonsel of James Street and Thomas Smith, of Park Street, Grosvenor Square, both described as ‘Taylor, Dealer and Chapman’. This partnership was dissolved in 1795.
January 29, 1795
Notice is hereby
given, that the Partnership between Louis Bazalgette, Peter Francis Denedonsel,
and Thomas Smith, of Grosvenor Street, Grosvenor Square, in the County of
Middlesex, Taylors, in this Day dissolved by mutual Consent; and all Debts
owing by the said Partnership will be paid by the said Louis Bazalgette, and
all Debts due and owing thereto will be received by him and Mr. Dawson,
Solicitor, Warwick Street, Golden Square, who are authorized to receive the
same.
Louis Bazalgette.
P. F. Denedonsel.
Tho. Smith.
[London Gazette]
Both of
these men were then declared bankrupt, so the dissolution ‘by mutual Consent’
does not quite ring true. It is more
likely that the two were cheating Louis, and he quite generously offered them
the option of a ‘mutual’ parting instead of having them arrested. They then either declared bankruptcy because
they had to sell everything to make restitution, or as a stratagem to avoid
having all of their assets seized.
Louis seems to have learned from this experience, as no record of later
partnerships has been found. Louis was associated with Thomas Shepperd later,
but probably as an employer rather than as a partner.
Part IV
We do not yet know with whom Louis banked before 1793, when he became a client of Coutts’ Bank. Nor have records been found of his business transactions, although some of these appear in his personal account. I feel fairly sure that he had an account with the Swiss Bankers Perregaux in Paris. Perhaps he did all his banking with them before moving to Coutts, but this would not have been very convenient once he had settled in London.
Meanwhile, the prince’s debts were mounting. Colonel G. Hotham wrote to the Prince on 27th October 1784 because the latter had asked him to give him an estimate of his debts (about ₤100,000 at that point). Hotham said he would do…
“…the
utmost in my power to retrieve your Royal Highness's finances from the wretched
and disgraceful state in which they stand at present... It is with equal grief and vexation that I
now see your Royal Highness (in matters of expense, I mean) totally in the
hands and at the mercy of your builder, your upholsterer, your jeweller and
your tailor. I say totally because
these people act from your Royal Highness's pretended commands and from their
charges there is no appeal. I leave Mr.
Lyte to to account to your Royal Highness concerning his own feelings about the
two latter..."
[Aspinall’s ‘Correspondence of the Prince of Wales’ Vol I, p. 165]
The tailor in question was almost certainly Louis, since he was the only
tailor mentioned in the later detailed list of George's debts, and he was owed
far more than anyone else on the list. The
builder was Henry Holland and the upholsterer our friend Guillaume Gaubert. It
implies that these people often overcharged the Prince, although Louis stated
later that he only charged him what he would have charged anybody. Even if this is true, probably not everybody
was ordering clothes of such magnificence, so comparisons are hard to make. Hotham’s letter continued in even more exasperated
tones:
“For my own part, I deliver in M. Gaubert's (bill), amounting to
£35,000, merely because he sends it to me and I have no right and still less
inclination to make the smallest addition, but from my own experience of what
has passed, I have little doubt but that the expense to you will, at last, be
greatly beyond that sum, and if
measures are not taken very different from what have hitherto been made use of;
if Mr. Gaubert is allowed carte blanche, as he has been, and if your Royal
Highness's orders, so constandy alleged to be given to him, are to supersede every direction and care that those much
higher in office than himself think proper to make use of for your interest and
service, your Royal Highness will find your self involved in fresh distresses,
the very moment after you are extricated from the present ones. “
In the "General Account of the
Ballances Due to His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales's Creditors" in the
Royal Archives, dated July 5, 1786, “Bazalgetti (sic), a Taylor of Brook Street
(sic)” was said to be owed ₤16774/3/2. Brook Street was an error, since the correct address of Louis’
shop was 22, Brooks Mews. William Pitt
refused to discuss the matter of the prince's debts in parliament, in the hope
that the prince would be forced, through economic necessity, to give up his
'mistress' Mrs. Fitzherbert. Of course, since his ‘marriage’ the
Prince’s spending had gone into an even higher gear.
On April the 7th, 1787, Louis married Frances Bergman, the eighteen-year-old daughter of Daniel Bergman, in the Church of St. George, Hanover Square. The parish register entry reads: "Louis Bazalgette and Frances Bergman a Minor both of this parish were married in this Church by Licence by and with the consent and Daniel Bergman the natural and lawful father of the said minor this seventh day of April in the year 1787." The register was signed by Louis Bazalgette, Frances Bergman, Daniel Bergman and Joseph Bonnez. Louis was by now thirty-six, and had been a widower for just under two years. Daniel, who apparently was Swedish-born, was also a tailor, of 9, Charles Street, Grosvenor Square, and therefore lived just round the corner from Louis. Frances was known in the family as Fanny, and her mother was Mary Middleship, whose father came from the Midlands, probably Shropshire, and who appears to have changed the family name from Milleship when the family moved to London. Fanny was their eldest daughter, and her other known siblings were Daniel, William, Thomas, Louisa Sarah and Theresa Philo. Theresa Philo’s name passed into the Bazalgette family later after her daughter married Louis’ son Captain Joseph William, RN, one of their sons being the famous civil engineer. This name, shortened to ‘Tizzie’ persisted for several generations more.
In the same year, Parliament
voted ₤161,000
for the settlement of the Prince's debts, though the debt was considerably
higher than this by now. One estimate
of his yearly expenses was ₤123,000. In a budget drawn up by the prince for annual expenses after the
debt was paid off, ₤4,000 per annum was allowed for his
tailor, which was obviously never going to be enough! The other proposed expenses under 'Robes and Wardrobe' were all
under ₤1,000. On April 24th, 1787, Louis was paid ₤1,509/13/2 in the 'First Dividend to
H.R.Highnesses Creditors amounting to ₤15000.' The further payments, which followed were:
August 21, 1787……………₤1,526/9/-
November 21, 1787………..₤3,022/7/4
January 29, 1788…………...₤3,214.13.8
May 27, 1788………………₤7,501/-/-.
This cleared the Prince's ₤16,774 debt to Louis.
However, about this time the
princes were so heavily in debt from gambling and other extravagances that they
tried to raise loans by any means possible.
The following passage
from Lady Anne Hamilton’s The Secret History of the Court of England describes
the ‘foreign bonds’ scandal.
Passing over many circumstances of dubious import,
relative to the departed monarch, we proceed to notice some transactions of an
unhappy complexion, and which reflect no small portion of dishonour upon his
memory. When the late Duke of York returned from his military education in
Prussia, he unfortunately brought with him the prevailing vice of the principal
courts of Germany, - that of gambling; and to his inordinate attachment to that
ruinous propensity may be attributed the frequent loss of property and personal
disgrace he endured. The late monarch, also, was equally addicted to a love of
play, and the sum allowed him when he attained his majority soon proved
insufficient to supply the natural consequences of that uncontrolled passion
and his very lavish expenditure in finery of all kinds.
In consequence of the mutual embarrassments of these
royal brothers, they found themselves under the absolute necessity of raising
money to discharge some of their most pressing accounts. The prince, in
conjunction with the Dukes of York and Clarence, tried every imaginable source
in this country, from which it was thought a supply could be raised, sufficient
to avert the impending storm that hung over their heads; but all their
endeavours failed. As a last resource, the late monarch was advised to attempt
a loan in Holland; and Messrs. Bonney and Sunderland, then of George Yard,
Lombard Street, were appointed notarial agents for the verification of the
bonds; and the late Mr. Thomas Hammersley, of Pall Mall, banker, was to receive
the subscriptions, and to pay the dividends thereon to the holders on the joint
bonds of the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, and the Duke of Clarence. The
sum intended to be raised was about one million sterling, the greater part of
which was subscribed for by foreign houses only at a price which would have
proved very satisfactory if the contract had been faithfully performed. The
negotiation for this loan commenced in 1788; but an interruption to its
completion was occasioned by the death of Mr. Bonney, the notary. It was
ultimately confirmed, to the great loss of those who had so rashly speculated
in such a questionable security. The loan was to bear six per cent interest,
and the revenues of their Royal Highnesses were to be invested in the hands of
the late Dukes of Northumberland and Portland, in order to ensure the due
payment of interest and principal. A large portion of the money, to the amount
of nearly half a million, had been received by the princes when the revolution
in France, in 1793, presented an opportunity to resist the payment of those
bonds which had been circulated, and even the interest due upon them was
refused. During the revolution, some of the holders of these bonds escaped, and
arrived in England; and, as their last resource, they made numerous
applications to the princes for the interest due to them, if it were not quite convenient
to discharge the bonds in full. But the law-advisers of the princes pretended
that the present holders were not entitled to the interest, as they presumed
the bona-fide holders had perished during the troubles in France and Holland;
and that, consequently, other claims were not legal. On the part of the
claimants, the bonds were produced which they had bought, and their right
asserted to claim interest and principal equally as if they had been the
original subscribers. This evasive
attempt to resist the just discharge of loans, raised at such great hazards,
must ever be considered as an indelible stain upon the characters of the
princes concerned. We, however, would acquit the Duke of Clarence from any
participation in the profits of these bonds; his natural affection for his two
elder brothers induced him to add his name to the bonds merely as a further
security to their holders; and we doubt not that his present Majesty will, if
he have not already done so, make all the reparation in his power to the heirs
of the original sufferers in these very dishonourable transactions.
The holders of these bonds finding themselves so
unjustly treated, M. Martignac, one of the original subscribers to them, made
an application to the Court of Chancery, and the affair came on by way of
motion. Sir Arthur Pigott, who was then attorney-general to the duchy of
Cornwall, replied, "that he had never heard of the existence of such
bonds; but his own opinion was that the unhappy condition of France and Holland
rendered the identification of the bona-fide holders almost impossible, even presuming
they ever had existed; but the inquiry should be made in the proper quarter." That inquiry,
however, never benefited the distressed refugees. Sir Arthur Pigott, the legal adviser of the
Prince of Wales, might, to please his master, attempt to deny the existence of
these nominal securities, yet positive proof against such denial was that they
were actually floating in the "money market" as common as any other
security, at that very time. There was, indeed, scarcely a broker on the
Exchange who had not some portion of them for sale, and it was an indisputable
truth that means of a disreputable nature were used to depreciate their value
in the money market.
We
must not here pass over the suspicious conduct (relative to these bonds) of the
then secretary of state for the home department. Under the specious pretext of
enforcing the alien act, this gentleman caused the whole of these injured
claimants to be taken and put on board a vessel in the Thames, which was stated
to be ready to sail for Holland. This vessel, however, cast anchor at the Nore,
for the professed purpose of waiting to receive the necessary papers from the
office of the secretary of state. The heart-rending destiny of the unfortunate
victims now only remains to be told. Although no charge was preferred against
them, they were thus unceremoniously sent out of the kingdom by the decree of
arbitrary power. From the list of twenty-six unfortunate creditors of the
princes, fourteen of them were traced to the guillotine. The other twelve
perished by another concocted plan. The two principal money-lenders, M. Abraham
and M. Simeon Boas, of The Hague, were endeavouring to maintain their shattered
credit, and actually paid the interest themselves due upon these bonds for two
years; but they were finally ruined, and one of the brothers put an end to his
existence by a pistol, the other by poison.
Similar tragical scenes were attendant upon another
loan raised for the princes by M. John James de Beaume, and prepared by Mr.
Becknel. The signed acknowledgment of the princes was for one hundred thousand
pounds, payable to the said De Beaume, and vesting in him the power to divide
this bond into shares of one thousand pounds each, by printed copies of the
bond, etc. The original bond was deposited for safety in the bank of Ransom,
Morland, and Hammersley, while an attested copy, as well as the bankers'
acknowledgment of their holding such security, were given to De Beaume as a
proof of his authority in being the agent of the three English princes. They
also gave him a letter of introduction to their correspondent in Paris, M.
Perregaux. After considerable difficulty, and after having remitted and paid to
the princes two hundred thousand pounds in money and jewels, M. de Beaume and
his associates were apprehended and charged with treason for asserting that
George the Third of England was King of France. These unfortunate men were
tried, condemned, and actually executed upon this paltry charge within
twenty-four hours after their mock trial. So perished Richard Chaudot,
Mestrirer Niette, De Beaume, and Aubert, either for purchasing the shares of
the princes' securities, or for negotiating them. Such also was the fate of Viette,
a rich jeweller, who had bought largely of the shares from De Beaume.
Would that we could here close the catalogue of
black offences against certain individuals; but we are obliged, as honest
historians, to refer to the cruel death of Charles Vaucher, a banker in Paris.
This gentleman quitted France in 1793, and fixed his residence in England,
where he married an English lady. He had been the purchaser of twenty shares of
the princes' bond, and, as was naturally to be expected, made application for
the interest due thereon. The claim being refused, the injured gentleman
applied for legal assistance; but the interest was still rejected, because the
bond had not been named in the schedule laid before the commissioners appointed
to examine into the extent of the debts of the Prince George. Further
application was made; though, instead of obtaining justice, this unfortunate
gentleman received an official order to quit England within the space of four
days. Having other affairs to arrange, M. Vaucher petitioned the Duke of
Portland (then prime minister) to allow him to remain until his affairs could
be arranged; but his petition was refused, and a warrant issued, signed by the
duke, directing William Ross and George Higgins, two of his Majesty's messengers,
to take M. Vaucher into custody till he should be sent out of the country,
which was immediately put in force. He was conveyed to Rotterdam, and from
thence to Paris, where he was imprisoned. On the 22d of December, 1795, his
trial took place upon similar charges to those of M. de Beaume, and he was soon
found guilty, and guillotined.
We could recite many other crimes relative to these
bonds; but we think we hear the shocked reader exclaim, "Hold!
enough!" Indeed, such sickening details can hardly obtain credence in the
minds of men, possessed of even the common feelings of our nature. To offer any
palliation of such monstrous atrocities would only be an insult to the
understandings of all unprejudiced observers of royalty.
This is rather a long passage, but
I regard it as necessary to include it for several reasons. One of these is that even if the princes
were unaware of these shenanigans, and there were plenty of men who were more
than willing to carry out dirty deeds on their behalf, it is enough evidence
for me, apart from the other extensive reading I have done on the subject, to
be convinced that they were all at best weak and self-centred and at worst
throughly reprehensible. Some more
recent authors have sought to rehabilitate Prinny, stating that earlier
biographers such as Huish described him too ‘harshly’. Some
point to his high culture, love of music, geniality as a host, friendliness to
the servants, etc. In my view these
‘virtues’ are far outweighed by his vices.
The other reason is that the extract above gives a
very good picture of the risks of lending the princes money. We know that Louis did this, holding joint
and other bonds for all of the princes, but since he was well established and
connected by now, and since the bonds were arranged by none other than Thomas
Coutts, it was less likely that he would have suffered the shameful fate of
other less fortunate foreign bondholders.
The matter of the princes’ bonds with Louis will be dealt with later, as
detailed records of their transactions are available only from 1793. The Prince’s brother, the Duke of York, was
still heavily in debt at his death, and some of these debts were stated to have
been outstanding for ‘over 45 years’.
On October 3rd 1788, Louis and
Fanny’s first child, a daughter, Frances Mary was born, and christened on
October 26th at St. George's Hanover Square. Her birthday was just two days before that
of Louis, who was then thirty-eight.
This child died in June 1790.