ASMUNS PLACE
Type of properties
Asmuns Place was one of the first roads in the Artisans Quarter to be completed and was built as per the 1907 plans. By the time of the 1911 Census, it was well established; there were 56 houses, of which 55 were occupied on Census night, whilst the occupants of a single house were absent and ‘enumerated elsewhere’.
These homes were designed as workers’ cottages and most had 4 or 5 rooms. The Census returns show a few exceptions (see chart below), however it is likely that this was the result of the differences in the interpretation of the instructions on the Census return as to what was to be counted as a room, since most of the houses are in terraces of 4. Of the 56 homes, almost half had 4 rooms (26 or 46%), 22 (39%) had 5 rooms whilst the others were reported to have 3 rooms (6 or 11%) or 6 rooms (2 homes = 4%).
The residents
Not surprisingly, the size and presumably the rental costs of these houses had a significant effect on the make up of the residents. In total, 204 persons were present on Census night. This average of around 4 people per dwelling reflects the nature of these small family homes which were attractive to families which in the early stages or to small households, perhaps headed by single persons or the widowed and others with relatively restricted incomes.
Unlike many of the other roads in 1911, the proportions of male and female residents are almost identical, with 101 males and 103 females. One of the key factors in this is the almost total absence of domestic servants; only one house reported a live-in servant and this was the lowest total of any of the roads investigated. This is likely to have been the result of both the limited means of most of the residents and as well as the lack of accommodation available. One other house had a temporary ‘monthly nurse’, apparently a short-term role assisting with a newly born baby. The limited space also meant that these homes were less suitable to extended families.
40 per cent (81 of 204) of the residents were in employment outside the home. This was somewhat higher than most roads, reflecting the design of the homes as workers’ cottages.
Family and age structures and children
71 per cent of the families living in the road had children living in the property. These fell into two broad groups: families with infant children and families with grown up children who were of working age, although there were also one or two where there was a mix of older employed children and those still in education. This mix makes judgements about overall family size a little more difficult as there were clearly some households where older children were no longer living at home, so completed family size may have been larger. For example, George Robinson at 11 Asmuns Place reports having 5 children. Four of these are still living at home, with the two older children working and the two younger ones still at school. Similarly, the Delderfields at 46, report having 3 children but only one of these is still living at the family home (Jennie who is aged 22, a shop assistant who is unmarried and therefore still living at home).
Overall, the proportion of households with children 16 or under (69%) is high compared with many other roads. This reflects the fairly young age structure of the heads of household and the relatively small size of the houses which would have made them suitable for new and young families. This is further reflected in the high proportion of families with only one child at this stage– almost half of families (45%). 14 of the children are registered as having been born in Hendon, presumably since their parents moved into the houses. A similar proportion of families have 2 and 3 children (21% or 8 families each). Larger families were less usual; there were 4 families with 4 children (11% of families) and just one with 5 children.
However, it is likely that completed family sizes would have been higher. The census returns show that the average number of children per marriage was 2.23 whereas among the families with children aged 16 or under it was 1.71. Several factors may have been at work here: a mix of new/younger families, as well as some indications that the birth rate may have been declining – the larger families tended to be among more middle-aged heads of household.
A further feature which has not been apparent in other roads is the incidence of infant mortality. A number of the older families have relocated from central London where housing would have been of poorer quality than in Hampstead Garden Suburb. The precarious nature of rented housing at this time is hinted at by the different birthplaces of successive children with some families clearly moving at regular intervals. Of the households with children, more than a quarter (27%) had experienced the death of at least one child. This is most marked among families where the parents were now middle-aged and in working class occupations and had formerly lived in central London; for example, the Flanagan family who had previously lived in Marylebone, had had 10 children but only 5 were still living.
There were a few examples of the extended family, although this is likely to have been limited by the small size of the home. For example,
As in most roads in Hampstead Garden Suburb at the time, there were few residents of pensionable age. At this point the Old Age Pension was a very new concept and people would have needed to have some form of independent means to afford the rent. There were only 4 people who 65 or older. The only other older people were a handful of extended family members, such as mothers and mother-in-laws. It was common at this time for families to take in older relatives of limited means when they were widowed.
A handful of houses (5) also recorded a boarder or lodger. This would have been useful in making the rents more affordable but was not common due to the size of the houses.
Birthplaces of residents
As can be seen from the pie chart a large majority (72 %) of the residents of Asmuns Place were born in London. This is the largest percentage of any of the roads investigated. A further 7% were born in the Home Counties surrounding London. Not surprisingly, the second largest category of birthplace was England beyond the Home Counties, with very small numbers from Scotland and Ireland. A small percentage of residents (4%) were born outside the UK. This was largely the result of the household headed by Mr Stullig (No. 52) (all three residents were French) and Mr Paul Billon at No.45. The latter was a watch repairer and both he and his wife were born in Switzerland. They had clearly been in London for some time since their 9-year-old son (like most of the children in the road) was born in London (St Pancras).
As in many roads, there is a reminder that Britain had an extensive empire in the 19th century. Miss Bessie Keighley, a 61 year old single woman of ‘private means’ living at No. 53 was born in Bengal, India. Much more unusual is Geoffrey Preston, aged 4. His birthplace is recorded as ‘Sialkot, India’. Sialkot is a city in the Punjab, now in northeast Pakistan. Geoffrey’s father, Hubert, was born in Yorkshire and has one of the most unusual and specialist occupations recorded in the census entries for Hampstead Garden Suburb, that of ‘Athletic Woodworker’ more specifically ‘cricket, hockey and tennis bat maker’. Presumably, Hubert had taken (or been sent by his employer) his bat-making skills to the Indian sub-continent when cricket was apparently growing rapidly on the Indian sub-continent and bat design was also evolving!
There are likely to be several reasons for the dominance of London as the birthplace of three quarters of the residents of Asmuns Place. Firstly, many of the households were new and growing families, with 14 of the children’s births being recorded as ‘Hendon’ and many of the others having been born elsewhere in London. It is also a reflection of the type and size of houses. These were specifically designed as small workers’ cottages and a high proportion of the heads of household are in skilled and unskilled roles such as painter, labourer, warehouseman, carpenter/joiner, postal sorter, furniture making and so on. Whilst some people with highly specialist skills will have been drawn to London, such as Mr Stullig and Mr Billon previously mentioned, generally these are not areas of employment where workers migrate long distances in search of work. What is noticeable is that most of the adults born in London were born in the more central crowded areas such as Islington, St Pancras, Hackney and Whitechapel; the sorts of areas for which Hampstead Garden Suburb was designed to offer a healthy and pleasant alternative.
Employment of residents
Asmuns Place had the smallest properties for working people which were completed by 1911. The residents were predominantly employed in clerical work or skilled trades. Clerk (in various industries/professions) was the most common form of employment and accounted for about 20% of householders. The largest group of employment was in skilled trades, accounting for about 40% of employment. About 10% of residents were in skilled trades such as carpenter/joiner in the building trade and it is likely that these were employed in the construction of the Garden Suburb. A bookkeeper and a landscape gardener were also employed by the Co-Partnership Tenants and Hampstead Tenants respectively. The other skilled areas included some which are no longer important due to changes in technology and mass manufacture, such as compositor (printing industry) wheelwright, telegraph supervisor, spectacle maker/optical glazier. A further 15% of householders worked in less skilled areas such as shop assistants, warehousemen and attendants. Other than clerks, there were relatively few middle-class workers with just one engineer/manager and one teacher.
Residents of Interest
There were not apparently any residents who were or became prominent. However, the residents of 52 Asmuns Place offer an insight into the history and development of London. The two oldest were both French nationals; Julia Felix, aged 79 was a widow and retired businesswoman born in Strasbourg who had run a furniture business. Cornelie Haussman, aged 67 was also born in Strasbourg and was now retired. The head of household was a somewhat younger French national, Frederic Stullig, aged 49 who is recorded as an employer and Wood Carver of frames. The relationship between the three is unclear. However, Julia appears in the Westminster Electoral Register at 149 Wardour Street at least as far back as 1890. This area of Soho was known throughout much of the 18th and 19th centuries as an enclave whose residents had French and often Huguenot ancestry. It was also an area specialising in furniture and according to the British History Online - Survey of London many of the buildings “were occupied by antique dealers, furniture-makers and brokers, through whose activities the term 'Wardour Street' came to denote, before the advent of the film industry, furniture of questionable antiquity”.
Kate Webster
