Miss Tate and her Almshouses

Faith, feminism and philanthropy in late Georgian and early Victorian England

by Karen Ip

Early on in this project, we were asked why we would publish a book about someone who never resided in the area. The answer was obvious – apart from her family connections to Mitcham through her father and her great-aunt Elizabeth, Mary Tate chose to be buried in the parish church, and her charitable endowments remain in evidence nearly 200 years after she first made them. She deserves our gratitude, and should be remembered as a shining example of quiet, thoughtful and considered nineteenth century philanthropy.
In telling the story of Mary Tate’s local endeavours, Karen Ip needed to put Mitcham into the context of a life lived in full awareness of privilege, whereby Mary Tate was able to provide support for the poor, education for children, places to worship, and the security of a home, for people in Mitcham, Hampshire and Leicestershire. Her legacy endures, and her memory is celebrated in this book.
In the light of current sensitivities, we would like to point out from the outset that Mary Tate’s family was not related to the Tates of the sugar corporation, Tate & Lyle.
We are grateful to Karen Ip for inviting us to publish her research and also for sorting out copyright permissions for illustrations, including Nancy Anderson’s wonderful cover design.

(from the Publishers’ Preface)

Finding Mary Tate – and her Almswomen

There is a pleasant walk in Mitcham in South London which takes
you across the old cricket green and through one of the town’s
conservation areas. As you pass across the green heading west,
you will see a number of charming period buildings around you.
Among them, to the left, are Mary Tate’s Almshouses,1 with their
quaint cottage-like dwellings around a central courtyard garden,
and their numerous chimneys rising above. When you reach
London Road, you can cross at the traffic lights and walk along a
little path between the old Vestry Hall and the Wandle Industrial
Museum. Continuing along Church Road for about ten minutes,
you reach Mitcham’s historic Parish Church, the Church of St
Peter and St Paul, surrounded by a well-kept graveyard. If you are
able to go inside, the church is worth a visit. Originally a medieval
building, it was rebuilt during 1819-1822, incorporating elements
of the older structure. A visitor walking around inside the church
cannot fail to notice the old memorials on the walls, several of
them for members of the Tate family. There are memorials to
Martha, Maria, Sophia, Benjamin, Elizabeth, William and Ann,
and if you venture into the choir vestry there is a lovely memorial
to George Tate partially hidden behind a cupboard. But where is
Mary Tate, the founder of the almshouses over by the green and
arguably the family member with the greatest legacy in Mitcham?
A memorial to her is nowhere to be found.

My interest in Mary Tate and her almshouses began in 2013 when
I became a trustee of Croydon Almshouse Charities, a charitable
group which owns Elis David Almshouses in Croydon and which
acquired Mary Tate’s Almshouses at that time. I have been a trustee
of these appealing almshouses built for women on Mitcham

Cricket Green throughout the intervening years, and during that
time I have been on an interesting and rewarding research journey,
seeking insights into the history of the building and its founder.

The journey began with the question: who was Mary Tate and, if
there is no memorial to her in Mitcham Parish Church, where was
she buried? There were fewer online resources available in those
days to research burial records, and I spent much time looking
for a way to answer what should have been a straightforward
question, together with my friend and fellow local historian (then
resident at Elis David Almshouses) Sue Turnbull. Eventually to
our relief the answer came in the form of a CD containing burial
records from East Surrey Family History Society. As Sue put it,
referring to Mitcham Parish Church: ‘she’s under the floor!’

So, she was interred in the Tate family vault in Mitcham, but
why no memorial? As we researched further, we tracked down
her will, transcribing it slowly and with some difficulty from a
handwritten record. The answer then became clear. ‘This is the
last will and testament of me Mary Tate of Langdown in the
county of Southampton, and of Grosvenor Place in the county of
Middlesex, Spinster. I desire to be buried as privately as possible
in the Parish Church of Mitcham in the county of Surrey, if this
wish can conveniently be carried into effect.’

We were then both hooked and wanted to know more about the
apparently publicity-shy ‘Mary Tate of Langdown and Grosvenor
Place, Spinster.’ We visited the Mary Tate’s Almshouses and had a
lovely chat with one of the residents at the time, Lilian Long, who
shared her wealth of knowledge about Mitcham’s history and
kindly gave me a copy of Eric Montague’s invaluable book on the
Cricket Green.2 We travelled to archives in London and Surrey,
as well as Loughborough, where we visited the site of Burleigh
Hall, Mary’s family seat, and discovered the last remnants of
her home. We spent a couple of days at Leicestershire Record

8 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Office looking for records of the Tate family, and we were thrilled
when the archivist handed us a bundle of letters written by Mary
herself in the 1840s to her neighbour in Loughborough – a gold
mine of original documents with their wax seals and Tate family
coat of arms still attached.

For several years afterwards, daily life restricted the time
available to progress the research, but later discoveries came
during the pandemic years, when I made use of online resources
during lockdowns. After that, I continued without Sue, visiting
the Southampton Water area in Hampshire as well as archives in
London and to my surprise even the National Gallery. Sue would
have loved to be there, but she was not able to join me due to ill
health, and very sadly she passed away in 2023.

Ten years after that starting point at Mitcham Parish Church, I now
feel I have been able to answer the ‘who is Mary Tate?’ question.
It certainly was not easy to find her, as unlike many genteel ladies
in the late Georgian and early Victorian era, she left no journals.
The only portrait of her I could find is one very small sketch (see
Page 6 and Chapter 5 for details) – although I found some of her
father George – and none of her homes are still standing today.
Her almshouses are the only tangible legacy bearing her name. But
the research has enabled me to discover her as a person and find
out what she stood for and what her place was in society.

Right from the start, Sue and I were also keen to find out about
the residents living at Mary Tate’s Almshouses – the women who
were described dismissively as ‘poor people’ at the time, and who
had been offered a place in them having lived hard lives working
in the service of the rich or in factories or trades. We wanted to tell
their story as well as the founder’s. Sadly, but not unsurprisingly,
there was scant information to go on, and in some cases almost
no records of their having lived at all. Fortunately, there was one
source that turned out to be an absolute gem – and like those

INTRODUCTION

letters in Loughborough it was a thrilling find. The London
Archives (formerly the London Metropolitan Archives) holds
a handwritten register of applicants to Mary Tate’s Almshouses,
dating back to 1833, containing hundreds of records of women
who applied for a place. These records, alongside census data and
one or two other sources, have enabled me to piece together some
insights into their lives. Likewise, it was important to understand
the context of Mary’s philanthropic work elsewhere, particularly
in Loughborough. So, I searched at length for records describing
the lives of the poor in that town and the conditions they lived
in, in order to understand the significance of Mary’s generosity.

The scope of this book is mainly the period of Mary’s lifetime –
1775 to 1849 – the late Georgian and early Victorian period. Since
Mary was a woman from the gentry social class, who owned or
had a life interest in several properties, I have structured much
of the narrative around her homes and what happened at each
location, rather than writing a strictly chronological account of
her life. Thus, we move from London where she lived as a child, to
Hampshire by the shore of Southampton Water, back to London,
then on to Mitcham, and finally to a hill above Loughborough.

This book is also a celebration of almshouses. As an almshouse
trustee and amateur local historian I firmly believe they are
worth celebrating. There is a striking contrast between the two
almshouses currently owned by Croydon Almshouse Charities:
Elis David Almshouses, founded by a medieval Mercer in 1447,
and Mary Tate’s, founded by a Georgian lady of the landed
gentry in 1829. But what they both have in common is that they
were a blessing to those who lived in them when they were first
built, and they still are today. Almshouses are still thriving all
around the country, and most of them have waiting lists for their
accommodation. They offer people in need a place to live, where
they are supported and part of a community, and each one has
its own unique history.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Lilian Long, resident at Mary Tate’s Almshouses,
for a lovely cup of tea and chat together with Sue Turnbull, right
back at the start of our research journey. The copy of Montague’s
The Cricket Green2 which she gave me has been in use ever since.
I am also grateful to Father David Pennells, Vicar of Mitcham,
for showing me and Sue around Mitcham Parish Church all
those years ago, including the all-important Tate memorials on
the walls in the church, and especially that of George Tate. More
recently Father David arranged for the Wessex Consort and their
late choirmaster Graham Stansfield to perform their wonderful
choral rendition of “Thank you Mary Tate” at Mitcham Heritage
Festival. I think Mary would have been touched by her story
being turned into a song, and I am sure she would have loved
the music.

I am grateful to all the staff in the many archives I have visited,
but in particular I would like to thank Sarah Gould and Richard
Hewitt at Merton Heritage and Local Studies Centre for
providing access to the remarkable Simpson Papers collection of
letters. I also have fond memories of visiting the Leicestershire
and Rutland County Council Record Office in Wigston, and I
would like to thank Anthony and Annette Goddard at Newton
Harcourt for an enjoyable stay while I was visiting these archives
in the middle of a heatwave, and for their kind invitations to keep
cool in the evenings sitting outside together with a glass of wine.

Thank you also to Dr Nina Cahill at the National Gallery for a
fascinating journey of mutually sharing information about the
history of the Van Dyck ‘Bagpiper’ painting, enabling me to
learn more about Mary’s artworks, and enabling the team at the
National Gallery to fill a gap in the painting’s provenance.

I am deeply indebted to Adeline Lim for making known to me
the entries in Anne Lister’s journal about Mary and about their
friendship, which for me was an exciting discovery. I am thankful
for Adeline’s transcriptions of the relevant sections from Anne’s
diary, for the example of Adeline’s wonderful books on Anne
Lister, and for her kind encouragement. Adeline, I am sending
you much gratitude, plus a barrel of anchovies which you should
receive very soon. I am also grateful to Madeline Healey for a
lovely visit to her home, and for sharing with me the history of
her five-times great Aunt Elizabeth Soane, a resident at Mary
Tate’s Almshouses.

I am so pleased to be able to publish this book through Merton
Historical Society, and I thank Peter Hopkins and all the
Committee for their interest in the subject and for the editorial
and publishing support they have provided. I am also grateful to
Phil Wilson for letting me use some of his lovely photographs of
Mary Tate’s Almshouses, and to my good friend Nancy Anderson
for her beautiful and historically accurate cover artwork.

Thank you to Martin Evans, Hayley James and the Croydon
Almshouse Charities staff and residents for their encouragement
and interest in their respective founders’ histories. Thank you
especially to the late Chris Clementi for all his encouragement
over the years, and for everything I have learnt from him; he
will be much missed by the Croydon Almshouse Charities
community.

Finally thank you to all my family for their encouragement and
support – and patience – as this long-term project unfolded. And
thank you to Sue for everything – this book is dedicated to her
in loving memory.

Almshouse residents together: Lilian Long from Mary Tate’s Almshouses
greets Sue Turnbull from Elis David Almshouses. Photo by the author.

Miss Tate and her Almshouses

Faith, feminism and philanthropy in late Georgian and early Victorian England

Karen Ip

MERTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY

ISBN 978 1 903899 88 5

The opinions expressed in this book are those of the author
and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Croydon
Almshouse Charities or of Merton Historical Society.

Cover illustrations by Nancy Anderson

Further information on Merton Historical Society can be
obtained from the Society’s website

www.mertonhistoricalsociety.org.uk

or from

Merton Library & Heritage Service, Merton Civic Centre,

London Road, Morden, Surrey SM4 5DX

Publishers’ Preface

Merton Historical Society has been publishing local histories
for 35 years, ranging from memories of growing up in mid-20th
century Morden, right through to scholarly transcriptions and
analyses of medieval manorial records.

In telling the story of Mary Tate’s local endeavours, Karen Ip
needed to put Mitcham into the context of a life lived in full
awareness of privilege, whereby Mary Tate was able to provide
support for the poor, education for children, places to worship,
and the security of a home, for people in Mitcham, Hampshire
and Leicestershire. Her legacy endures, and her memory is
celebrated in this book.

In the light of current sensitivities, we would like to point out
from the outset that Mary Tate’s family was not related to the
Tates of the sugar corporation, Tate & Lyle. See reference 5, p123.

We are grateful to Karen Ip for inviting us to publish her research
and also for sorting out copyright permissions for illustrations,
including Nancy Anderson’s wonderful cover design.

6 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Mary Tate as a young woman – the only image of her that has come
to light, after a long search. Taken from Loughborough in Black and
White. Volume 2 Thorpe Acre (undated, Reprint UK – www.reprintuk.
com), by kind permission of the author Dave Dover.

Introduction

Finding Mary Tate – and her Almswomen

Cricket Green throughout the intervening years, and during that
time I have been on an interesting and rewarding research journey,
seeking insights into the history of the building and its founder.

8 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

INTRODUCTION

Acknowledgements

Almshouse residents together: Lilian Long from Mary Tate’s Almshouses
greets Sue Turnbull from Elis David Almshouses. Photo by the author.

London’s fashionable Mayfair – Mary’s home as a child.

Cross’s New Plan of London 1859. Reproduced with the permission of
the National Library of Scotland, https://maps.nls.uk/

Chapter 1

A Gentleman’s Daughter

It seems that Mary Tate was in many ways someone who was
destined to be a good philanthropist. Born into a wealthy family
with extensive connections among the landed gentry and
aristocracy, as well as philanthropic forebears, she could go far
in the business of charity. But what she did with that wealth and
those connections was by no means conventional.

Mary was born on 20 December 1775 in London. During this
period there were no official birth records, but we do have a
record of her baptism, which took place on 14 February 1776
at the suitably grand St George’s Church, Hanover Square.3 Her

Interior of the Parish Church of St George, Hanover Square,

Mayfair, London. Photo by the author.

parents were George and Bridget Tate, both wealthy members
of the landed gentry.4 George was born in Mitcham, the son of
Benjamin Tate of Burleigh Hall in Loughborough and Martha
Allcroft of Mitcham.5 The Mitcham branch of the Tate family has
been well-researched by Eric Montague in his book The Cricket
Green 2 and Montague describes the young George spending
his childhood in the village along with his six siblings. As was
the custom at the time, George was later buried in Mitcham
Parish Church along with other members of the Tate family.

We know little about George’s early life, but we do have a
glimpse into what seems to have been an adventurous youth
from his obituary: ‘Mr Tate entered the Guards young, and the
early period of his life was chiefly passed on the Continent,
particularly in Italy, where he resided some years.’ 6 This
reference to the Guards is most likely to have been either the
Coldstream or the Grenadier Guards. and both regiments were
involved in the wars in Europe at the time.

While Montague focuses his research on the Tates’ links to
Mitcham, he has very little to say about Mary’s mother Bridget.
According to her baptism record, she was baptised in 1743 in
Chertsey, Surrey.7 The daughter and sole heir of Richard Ford
of Chertsey,8 she was married first to Blunden Moore of Sayes
Court and Byfleet. Blunden Moore, like George Tate, was from
a wealthy landowning family, and Sayes Court was described
as ‘one of the largest houses in the parish of Chertsey.’ 9 Bridget
married Blunden Moore on 28 April 1761 at St Peter’s Church
in Chertsey; she was 17 and he was 26.10 The Moore family had
a long and illustrious history, with both the poet John Milton11
and Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of Henry VIII, among their
ancestors.12

Bridget and Blunden had three children: William, Richard and
Elizabeth. The oldest, William, was baptised in 1765,13 died

18 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

unmarried, and was buried at St Mary’s Church in Byfleet in
1808.14 The second child, Richard, was baptised in 1767,15 and,
having lived longer, plays a much more significant role in the
life of his future half-sister Mary. He died and was likewise
buried in Byfleet in 1839.16

Blunden Moore died in 1768 at the age of only 34; he too was
buried in Byfleet.17 This left his widow Bridget alone with three
young children and with estates to manage; a difficult prospect
for any woman at that time. A further tragedy befell the family
two years later. Elizabeth, the couple’s only daughter, who was
baptised in 1763, died at the age of six and was buried beside
her father in 1770.18 The baptism record and burial record of
this young girl are the only remnants of her short life; had she
lived into adulthood then Mary would have had a half-sister.

Bridget, like many widows of the time, probably felt some
pressure to remarry, and so it was that on 6 March 1775 her
second husband-to-be George Tate went to the Church of St
George Hanover Square, where he signed the church register to
arrange their marriage.19 He had previously bought a licence,
which would afford some flexibility for both place and date,
avoiding any delay in having banns of marriage read out in a
particular church. It was not uncommon at the time for people
of their status to marry in this way.

Bridget brought to the marriage considerable wealth and land,
and she appears to have been careful to protect her wealth
for herself and her two sons. This is not only revealed by the
contents of her very lengthy and complicated will,20 but also
in a ‘Marriage Settlement by lease and release’ dated February
1775, made just before her marriage to George.21 Under the
settlement Bridget would be entitled to the profits of estates
named therein for her life. If she died before her husband
George, he would take the profits for the rest of his life. If they

CHAPTER 1: A GENTLEMAN’S DAUGHTER

George Tate Esq by George Hayter, study for a miniature, c. 1810.
National Portrait Gallery, London

both died, named trustees would hold the land on behalf of any
children they might have.

Mary’s education

Both George and Bridget were living in London at the time of
their marriage: George in fashionable Pall Mall and Bridget in
Argyle Street in St Pancras.22 After the marriage they moved to
the Mayfair area, settling in Albemarle Street where Mary was
born. As was fitting for someone of her status, Mary was probably
initially educated at home, with lessons from a governess and
from family members, as at that time there were few schools for
girls.

There is very scant information about Mary’s education,
but we do know that many of her formative years were spent
developing skills in art and music, and it is clear from numerous
archive references that both pursuits remained important to

Signatures and wax seals of George and Bridget on their Marriage
Settlement of 1775; photo by the author.

Hampshire Record Office: Dutton Papers: 63M48/584-585.

her throughout her life. The Tates were a musical family, and
the archive sources tell us they enjoyed Handel and even a bit
of Beethoven, although the latter was generally considered too
avant-garde at the time.23 George was widely known as a very
talented cellist, and his obituary describes him as ‘the best
amateur violoncello player of his day.’ 24 As soon as Mary was
skilled enough to do so she accompanied him on the piano.

One source, in particular, gives us a vivid picture of the young
Mary learning music and art, and using her skills to teach others.
It comes from a childhood autobiography of Harriet Lewin, a
young friend of Mary’s, whose parents attended musical evenings
with the Tates and performed with them:

Miss Tate took great notice of me, and I profited
sensibly by her instruction in music, as she was good
enough to give me singing lessons. She herself had
been a pupil of the great Cimarosa in Italy, and had
many accomplishments; she could use the pencil,
and dabbled in oil colours. She cultivated the talent
for art which was dawning in me and I became much
attached to her.25

Domenico Cimarosa was a renowned Italian composer and
musician, widely known for his many comic operas, so we can
imagine that Mary must have had an exciting time in Italy being
taught singing and piano, in a place and time where classical
music and opera was in full flourish. She would also have learnt
Italian, a language which her father spoke. It was a somewhat
unusual experience for a young girl from the landed gentry of the
period, and George’s links with Italy made it possible for Mary
to travel and to develop a lifelong interest in other countries and
cultures.

Alongside this, however, she would have had a similar upbringing
to other young girls of her class and her time. As Frank Prochaska

describes in his book on women and philanthropy, ‘the world
of girls was an indoor world,’ and their education included
instruction in the care of households and managing servants,
alongside some potentially limited intellectual pursuits.26 It also
normally included an in-depth religious instruction, rooted in
the established church, instilling in girls’ young minds a deep
sense of duty towards the poor and a desire to do good works.
Mary’s female relatives would have been her role models in this
respect, for example Elizabeth Tate, Mary’s cousin once removed,
and who like her never married, made a generous bequest to the
poor of Mitcham and was involved in local parish matters.

Mary’s male relatives would also have influenced her thinking
about charity, but their contribution to the relief of the poor
was generally achieved through formal roles and positions,
which women at that time could not hold. George’s grandfather
Benjamin and Benjamin’s brother William were both Overseers
of the Poor (parish officials who administered funds to those in
need), and they were involved in plans for the building of the
second Mitcham Workhouse, and George too was involved in
distributing charitable relief. A letter held in the Hampshire
Archives, dated 1798 and written by him from Bruton Street
(around the corner from Albemarle Street) is addressed to the
Earl of Malmesbury.27 In the letter George thanks the Earl for a
contribution to funds for volunteers in the Dibden and Fawley
districts of Hampshire. It is probable that the volunteers in
question were either involved in the distribution of charitable
relief for the poor in the area, under the Georgian Poor Law
system, or part of a local militia. Further letters written in
subsequent years mention George’s role as Superintendent of the
‘Bounty to the poor.’ 28 They also reveal that George was involved
in local affairs in Hampshire at this time, specifically in the
Dibden area, where Mary would subsequently spend many years
of her life.

Bridget Tate’s death

Sadly, when Mary was about seven and a half years old, she
suffered the trauma of her mother’s death. Bridget was buried
on 8 May 1783 at St Mary’s Byfleet, close to the grave of her
first husband Blunden Moore.29 Her will – the longest and most
complicated of all encountered in the research for this book –
was written and signed on 5 July 1775, just after her marriage to
George and while she was pregnant with Mary.30 Unsurprisingly
it makes provision for her two sons William and Richard, and its
length and complexity reflect her status as sole heir of her father’s
family fortune as well as her inheritance from Blunden Moore.
However, it is the Codicil, added in 1778 after 3 years of marriage
to George, which gives us a special insight into Bridget and her
wishes. The Codicil alters the will, appointing George to be the
sole executor as well as giving him full guardianship of her two
sons. The guardianship was, by their father’s will, to fall to the
trustees John Johnson and John Dashwood King, but:

St Mary’s Church Byfleet: the graves of the Moore family are by the yew
tree to the right. Photo by the author.

On account of the very great love and esteem I
have for my present husband George Tate from his
affectionate attention and disinterested behaviour
to me and my two sons William Moore and Richard
Moore since our marriage, I do in the most earnest
manner recommend and instruct of John Johnson
and John Dashwood King that they could permit
my husband George to continue to have the care and
guardianship of my two sons which he has ever since
our marriage fulfilled with so much tenderness and
integrity. I do also instruct in the same manner the
trustees named in all instruments executed by me on
my marriage with George Tate that they will permit
him to have the management of my said two sons’
fortunes and estates until their ages of twenty one,
being thoroughly assured from the tenderness and
affection he has always shown to them and the great
integrity with which he has managed all their affairs
that he will acquit himself to the satisfaction of all
parties.31

This change appears to have been highly significant, and
potentially controversial, to the extent that in the year following
Bridget’s death, Martha Tate (George’s sister) and David James
(a lawyer) were required to sign an oath to say that Bridget’s
signature, and therefore the Codicil, was genuine.32 Perhaps the
will was somehow contested, but if so this was not successful
and Bridget’s wishes were fulfilled. The outcome was apparently
a good one for Bridget’s sons, and for Mary, as they grew up
together in George Tate’s care.

The Moore brothers

What can we learn of Mary’s only siblings, William and Richard
Moore? It appears they led very different lives. The evidence for
William’s early life is scant: he is mentioned in two deeds of sale,
dated 1790 33 and 1791 34 when he would have been about 25 years
old. The first of these is for the sale of lands in Hampshire and
other counties, and it lists both him and his brother; he is listed
as ‘William Moore of East Cholderton Esq;’ (in Hampshire).35
William also lived for some time in Heston, near London, and
later moved to Bracknell where he died at the age of 42. As the
eldest son of Blunden Moore, he inherited much of his parents’
estates and would have been able to live off the proceeds of
these, presumably enjoying the lifestyle of the landed gentry and
holding public offices of various kinds.

However, it seems his story ended very badly, as is described
in a Probate Lawsuit Allegation document of 1808 held by the
National Archives, in which a sad picture emerges of William
dying of liver failure brought on by excessive drinking of
‘spirituous and other strong liquor to excess, particularly Brandy,’
having squandered a great deal of his wealth:

Has not the deceased – before his death by gambling
and other vices to which he was addicted – lost, sold
and dissipated nearly the whole of his estate? 36

The allegations in the lawsuit were made on behalf of Richard
Moore against Elizabeth Hurne, William’s mistress at the time of
his death, who was named as sole executrix and beneficiary in his
will, and her associate, a Mr Philips. They state that not only was
there suspicion about this will, which seems to have been written
in haste and was intended to replace another will favouring
Richard and his children, but they also allege that Elizabeth and
Mr Philips conspired to control William and take advantage of
his wealth and property when his health had reduced him to a

state of weakness and dependency. Whatever the truth may have
been, perhaps the evidence against them was not strong enough,
as the will was proved on 30 December 1808, so Elizabeth Hurne
did get whatever was left of his estate.37

Richard Moore, his younger brother, is listed on the above-
mentioned deeds as ‘Cornet in the Prince of Wales Light
Dragoons.’ After his time in the military, he married Charlotte-
Ann Trimmer in Ealing in 1792,38 and the couple had six children.
They lived in a Grace and Favour apartment at Hampton Court
Palace, and he became an expert on monetary policy and
banking, writing a series of books on the subject between 1826
and 1836.39 In Georgian times the apartments at Hampton Court
Palace were offered to important servants of the monarch or
their widows, and they were much sought-after. It is not clear
why Richard and his family were offered an apartment, but it is
his wife’s name and that of one of his daughters which appears in
a book on the history of the palace. They are listed as occupying
the second floor on the east side of the Clock Court.40

An interesting legacy survives from the Moore family and their
connection with the Tates in London. One of Richard’s children,
Mary Jane, married Colonel Charles Milner; another, John
Fitzmoore, married Sarah Halsey. Mary Tate conveyed land in
Chelsea to Richard at her death and he divided the holdings
among his children. In the mid-19th century, they built three
connected streets there: Moore Street, Halsey Street and Milner
Street. All three streets, each with attractive Georgian houses,
survive to this day.41

Both the Tates and the Moores enjoyed wealth and influence
and it appears led interesting lives within Georgian society. Like
others of their rank, they held positions of influence, and their
wealth enabled them to spend time and money on philanthropy.
But like the poor of Dibden and Fawley whom George helped,

they did not escape the tragic loss of family members, or the
worries of ill health in a child. In one of the letters written by
George to the Earl of Malmesbury, he writes: ‘many thanks for
your enquiries, my daughter’s health is mending, and she receives
benefit from the air and bathing at Cowes.’42 Perhaps it was partly
for his daughter’s health that he made the decision to move to
Hampshire at the very start of the 19th century.

Tate family coat of arms, featuring three Cornish choughs, from the
memorial to Benjamin Tate (d.1790) in Mitcham Parish Church,
photo by the author.

The arms are blazoned ‘or, a pale gules, counterchanged fesswise, between
three Cornish choughs sable, armed of the second’. Essentially this is a
gold shield with a broad red stripe down the middle, plus choughs on the
gold area. A carved version is visible in the photo on p.90. The additional
shields in the centre of the Mitcham version are in the same tinctures.

Chapter 2

A Home by the Sea

In 1797, or around that time, it appears that George Tate and
his daughter moved to Hampshire, and they selected a fine spot
on the eastern edge of the New Forest overlooking Southampton
Water for their new home. The location they chose, near the
small medieval villages of Dibden and Hythe, offered them the
quiet charms of rural life, the pleasures of being by the sea and
the promise of a lively social scene. Langdown House, built for
George and Mary, is described by Clare and Fred Murley in
their local history book on the area as ‘one of the largest in the

Watercolour painting depicting the grounds of Langdown House with a
view over Southampton Water, by Louise Hobart, c. 1862.

Hampshire Cultural Trust Collections.

30 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Southampton Water, with Langdown on the south shore. Ordnance Survey One-inch Engraved Map of Southampton
1877, Sheet 315. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland, https://maps.nls.uk/

environs of Hythe.’ 43 Like Burleigh Hall it has sadly not survived to
the present day, but the Tates, as well as the Hobart family to whom
Mary later bequeathed the property, are commemorated in the road
names there.

George Tate’s name begins to appear in the Hampshire records in
1797-8, and early references to George living in the Langdown
area and being involved in the local community include game duty
listings, letters,44 and a poll book entry for 1806. A map printed
by John Cary in 1815 clearly shows the new house and the view
over Southampton Water.45 Some fine watercolours of the house
and gardens have also survived and are in the possession of the
Hampshire Cultural Trust Collections. Painted by Louise Hobart,
who later inherited the house, they give us a sense of the grandeur
of the Georgian building, and its extensive gardens overlooking
Southampton Water with ships travelling to and fro in the distance.46

CHAPTER 2: A HOME BY THE SEA

Watercolour painting of Langdown House and garden, Hythe and
Dibden, Hampshire, by Louise C Hobart, c. 1862.

Hampshire Cultural Trust Collections.

Pencil drawing of Henry John Temple, later third Viscount Palmerston,
aged 17 years, drawn by Mary Tate at Broadlands, 6 October 1801.

University of Southampton MS62/BR/101/79.

The Tates soon immersed themselves in the social scene of the
local gentry and aristocracy, and one family they visited was that
of Henry Temple, second Viscount Palmerston, at Broadlands
House to the north of Southampton. In January 1801, Mary made
use of her artistic skills while at Broadlands to draw a sketch of
his 13-year-old son William Temple. So delighted was his mother
Mary that she wrote enthusiastically to her husband: ‘William
has just had his Picture drawn by Miss Tate, most excellently
well done.’ 47 Another invitation to Broadlands followed later in
the year, and this time Mary drew his older brother. Her work
of art was clearly cherished by the family, and consequently still
exists among their papers at Southampton University’s Hartley
Library.48 Little did Mary know when she created her drawing
of 17-year-old Henry John Temple, that he would later become
the third Viscount Palmerston and serve for many years in
Parliament, including periods as Foreign Secretary and Prime
Minister.

The Tates seem to have become good friends with the Palmerstons,
and in 1804 they were invited to an exclusive performance
of a drama at Broadlands: ‘Mr and Miss Tate … are among a
numerous party of friends entertained at present by Viscountess
Palmerston, of Broadlands in Hampshire, who occasionally
perform some of the most approved English comedies, in which
the young Viscount takes a distinguished part.’ 49

For part of this early period at Langdown, the archive records
are largely silent on George and Mary, and it is possible that they
travelled abroad. We also have evidence that George maintained
a presence in London, and several visits to the city were recorded
in 1815, both on his own and with Mary. These were published in
the ‘Fashionable Arrivals’ and ‘Fashionable Departures’ sections
of London’s Morning Post newspaper, which listed the comings
and goings of the aristocracy and landed gentry.50

For Mary herself, during the early Langdown years, the archive
records are restricted to an example of her artistic skills and
mentions of her name alongside that of her father. Mary was yet
to emerge in her own right in the historical records, which is
unsurprising given the status of women at the time. As a woman
and an unmarried daughter, she had no legal or political status
of her own. As an only child and future heiress, however, she
would almost certainly have received attention from suitors
and admirers, most probably eyeing what would become her
significant inheritance. Under the law of coverture, once a
woman married, her husband would take control of his wife’s
finances and assets, unless specific legal provisions were made
to avoid this.51 But Mary did not marry, and she was referred
to throughout her life as ‘Miss Tate’. 52 It appears that one key
person who supported her choice in this respect was her father.
His views on marriage can be glimpsed in a letter to his friend
Thomas Lewin, dated 1819, in which he gives some witty but
sincere advice to a young woman, possibly someone in the Lewin
family or even Mary herself: ‘I grant her dispensation to marry,
but she must first find a man with a good head and a kind heart,
who will calmly suit her sweet disposition, and it is entirely with
a view to her happiness that I venture to offer her this advice.’ 53

A variety of pursuits

While it is difficult therefore to piece together what life was
like at that time for Mary, it is interesting to note that she was
contemporary with Jane Austen, who coincidentally was born
in the same year, and who, like Mary, spent part of her life in
Hampshire. Jane Austen’s novels tell us a great deal about the
rural landed gentry and the lives of both men and women in
the period. In a book on Austen and her novels, Gillian Russell
writes that Jane was born in a decade which ‘witnessed a full-

blown revolution for women, who were exerting themselves in
the spheres of poetry, history, painting, novels and playwriting,
music and performance.’54 Mary lived close to Southampton,
where there would have been opportunities to go to theatres,
assembly rooms, shops and libraries. In addition, she would have
had the opportunity to go sailing, and, as in London, George
and Mary also maintained their musical skills, inviting friends
to Langdown to entertain them with music. One such visit was
described amusingly by Harriet Lewin in a letter to her sister
Charlotte, accompanied with a drawing of George, on a visit in
February 1814. The letter describes Mary suffering from a cold,
and she gives George an affectionate Italian-style nickname:

From Mr Tate’s, Hythe near Southampton

We have been hanging out here since Thursday, and
very agreeable quarters they are … I have sketched Mr
Tate to the life, full flourish on the violoncello, bolt
upright, clubtail, etc. Miss Tate is accablée [stricken]
full trumpet, bark and wheeze in a catarrh … Tatini
[Mr Tate] gone sailing off to Southampton, charging
us to be here when he comes back.

Death of George Tate

In May 1822, when Mary was 47 years old, her father suddenly
died at the Dolphin Inn in Southampton, of ‘spasms in the
stomach, to which he had long been subject.’ 55 His obituary in
The Gentleman’s Magazine describes him as: ‘upright, correct,
and honourable in all his dealings … with that happy disposition
which always inclined him to see people and things in the best
light.’ 56 He was buried with his family in Mitcham Parish Church,
and his grand and eloquent memorial on the North Wall of the
church, with wording written by Mary, speaks movingly of him:

Drawing of George Tate by Harriet Lewin, 1814, University of London,
Senate House Library, MS811/I/23.

This monument was erected by his only daughter

who feels the deepest sense of gratitude and affection

for his unceasing care and tender solicitude

for her from the earliest moment of her recollection

to the latest breath of his life.

As a husband, a father, and a brother

no man was ever

more cordially and deservedly beloved

at home and in foreign parts.

With the death of her father, Mary duly became the sole heir of
the Tate fortune. Her father bequeathed Langdown and all its
lands to her absolutely, giving her full control over the estate.
Burleigh Hall, the Tates’ old family seat, and its lands were placed
in trust, and Mary was to receive the proceeds from the rents
during her lifetime. Likewise, she was to receive rents from lands
held in Chelsea and Brompton in London.

In addition to this Mary was to receive the sum of £30,000 (a
highly significant sum at the time and equal to that of Jane
Austen’s heroine Emma),57 as well as the household goods, as
outlined in George’s will:

I give and bequeath to my only child and beloved
daughter Mary, to for and at her own absolute use
and disposal, the sum of thirty thousand pounds …
and I also give and bequeath to for and at the disposal
of my said daughter, all my household goods and
furniture, plate, linen, china, horses, carriages, wines,
liquors, bank stock, bank notes and monies in the
house and at my private bankers, and all other my
personal estate and effects except such other funded
property as I shall have after answering the legacies
hereinbefore bequeathed.58

George’s will understandably focused entirely on Mary, as his two
stepsons were both well provided for in the will of their mother
Bridget. Only Richard (who as the second son did not inherit the
bulk of Bridget’s estates) inherited £500 in the will, and his wife
and children received £100 each.

In the very same year as George Tate died, there was another
death, this time at Langdown House. A young friend of the Tate
family, Harriet Northey, is reported in the local paper to have died
while staying at the house in November 1822.59 Aged 25, she was
the daughter of the Revd Edward Northey, Canon of Windsor.
She died unmarried, but according to genealogical records her
sister Charlotte married Henry Knight and another sister Mary
married William Knight – both nephews of Jane Austen. William
Knight was Rector of Steventon, Hampshire, where Jane Austen’s
father was also Rector. Given these connections, and living in
relatively close proximity, perhaps it is possible that Mary and
Jane Austen might have met.

Letters

Now that Mary had become a landowner and person of influence
in her own right, she began to make her own way as a single
woman in late Georgian society, shaping her social life by hosting
dinner parties and social events at her home, as well as inviting
people to stay. One of those who accepted her invitations was
Anne Sturgess-Bourne, the daughter of a Tory MP living at
Testwood House in Southampton. Anne was a prolific letter
writer, and she wrote long letters regularly to her friend Marianne
Dyson. Anne mentions ‘Miss Tate’ in thirteen of her surviving
letters (now held in Hampshire Archives) all dated between 1828
and 1847, in which she describes visiting Langdown for social
events or walks in the grounds of the estate. In the earliest of
these letters, dated 1828, she mentions staying at Miss Tate’s for

a few days. Then in an undated letter, she describes a memorable
dinner party with distinguished company:

Today we go to Bannisters, but it is yesterday that
I must tell you about. The eight ladies and two
gentlemen at Miss Tate’s, but two of these are
Lord Stuart’s daughters, girls of 15 and 16, very
pretty, very peaceful, natural, and full of talent; the
youngest drawing figures and everything with a
taste of accuracy and boldness that I never saw in a
woman … How sorry I was that we had only dined
there and refused [to stay]. I sat between Freddy
and Miss Stuart and got her to talk very pleasantly.
The other [daughter] was plainer with less effect but
more regular features. She sat in a corner scribbling
beautiful heads, two figures all the evening and
laughing with Freddy and listening to the music.60

‘Arriving at a country house party,’ by Thomas Rowlandson –

Plate 28, from ‘World in Miniature,’ 1816. Courtesy of Metropolitan
Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1917. Public Domain.

It appears that Anne had a good eye for artistic talent, as both
young women went on to become renowned artists. They were
the daughters of Lord Stuart de Rothesay of Highcliffe Castle in
Dorset, whose wife Elizabeth Lady Stuart was a good friend of
Mary’s (as we shall see in the London chapter).

In another letter, dated 1837, Anne describes staying with Mary,
walking in and around the grounds of the estate, and drawing.
She also goes to a concert and to the races. Much later in 1847
she talks about riding and sailing to Cowes on the Isle of Wight.

In the 1830s life was changing throughout the country as
the industrial revolution, powered by steam technology, was
gathering pace, and even in Dibden its presence was felt, as is
shown in a letter dated 1841 written by Anne:

We did go to Miss Tate on Friday and had a delicious
walk by the seashore … if you can call that sea – it
looked its best, glassy and transparent and brim
full and green. The great West India steamers are
collecting and make the river look quite small. C
Markham is coming tomorrow to go by the first of
these to Jamaica. There will be 14.61

Perhaps what is most interesting of all about the Sturgess-Bourne
letters, however, is that they say little about Mary herself. Anne
was clearly happy to accept her hospitality, but it appears was not
really a close friend. Only one undated letter (probably written by
the time Mary was living at Burleigh Hall) contains a description
of Mary and Anne’s opinion on her qualities as a person. Anne,
writing about her plans for charitable giving following receipt of
a dividend, comments thus:

I always look on Miss Tate as a foreshadowing of
myself. I used to think her wanting in energy, but
whether I shall have any more if I live to be alone in

the world I very much doubt. She does much good at
Loughborough …62

While it can be assumed that Mary herself wrote many letters
while living at Langdown, only one has survived in the Hampshire
Archives. Written to Lady Georgiana Howard, Countess of
Carlisle, the letter (with no year date) describes an apparently
serious condition for which she is taking medication, including a
medicine recommended by Georgiana to her:

Langdown, Aug 22

To The Lady W Howard

Dearest Georgiana

Thanks many for your letter and recipe, and I obey
your kind wish by sending a line to tell you I am
visibly improving. I have left off Mr T’s medicines
for a time, but shall recur to them again perhaps in
a fortnight.

The palpitation comes on often, tho [sic] slightly –
when I go upstairs or walk quickly, and the nasty
pain in my neck up to my head this my right ear (I
hope you won’t be sick with these details) torments
me daily, and which I write now and down my arm
to the finger ends! Whether all this is only local and
immaterial or [portents] more disturbance … I don’t
know, but I try to think little and hope for the best.
Quiet is my best resource.

…accept yourself the grateful thanks and your
affectionate M.T.

[On back of letter:] I am going to take a sail. I sit
out weather permitting and I drink hard of your
excellent prescription, warm regards.63

The estate: its occupants and its neighbours

Langdown was by then known as a large and prominent estate,
and it provided a source of income for many people. The 1841
census lists 34 people living there: two female servants and
tenants: gardeners, agricultural labourers, a shepherd, a joiner,
a brickmaker, and a bailiff or steward plus children and retired
people. Mary herself was not there at the time of the census and
the servants would have looked after the house for her during
her absence. We see from the tithe apportionment schedule
(see Appendix 1) that the bailiff Richard Zillwood rented a
large proportion of Mary’s land. He was probably involved in
managing the estate, and some of Mary’s time during her years
there would have been taken up with estate matters.64 It was not
unusual for women to be involved in estate business, although
the degree to which they were directly involved varied greatly. It
appears that Mary’s involvement was significant, as some years
after George’s death she embarked on extensive alterations to the
house, servants’ areas, courtyards, animal enclosures and gardens.
The works included the installation of a number of water closets
and privies, with separate ones for men and women, and she
employed the architect John Peniston between March 1826 and
January 1827 to oversee the work. Water closets would have still
been new and sometimes troublesome technology at the time,
and Mary certainly had considerable trouble with them. In a
letter written to a local plumber by Peniston in 1827, he discusses
options to find the cause of the ‘stink from the water closet at
Langdown,’ and anxiously proposes solutions in response to
Mary writing to him repeatedly on the subject.65

The 1841 census also provides details of Mary’s neighbours, and
one of these is of interest in the context of the campaign against
slavery in the 19th century. Captain George Wickham Willis of the
Royal Navy was born in the Hythe area, not far from Langdown,
and joined the Navy in 1802. He was active in the Mediterranean

in his early Navy days, but later played a part in the campaign to
stop the slave trade in west Africa. According to historian Sian
Rees, he took great risks to save people from slavery – as captain
of HMS Cherub in 1817, he captured a Spanish slave ship, but the
slave traders fought him in the courts and sued him for damages.
The capture was later ruled as illegal, and he was heavily fined
and financially ruined.66 Later in 1825 he became captain of HMS
Brazen, and his ship boarded and inspected a schooner with
Spanish colours. Captain Willis forced the slave traders to give
up their slaves, and 231 people were saved from slavery.67

By 1841, at the time of the census, Willis was living very modestly
at Langdown Cottage next to Mary’s estate, and the census lists
8 people living in the house including 3 daughters and a son. He
died in 1846, three years before Mary, and she left instructions
in her will for her trustees to complete a purchase of land from
the trustees of Mrs Willis.68 Mary would have known of Captain
Willis’ career, and it seems very likely that she would have
approved of what he had done.

Social life in later years – and a coronation party

Although Mary was away from Langdown for long periods at
times, she seems to have continued to live there at least periodically
until around 1840, when her name appears in the local newspaper
in an article about a party at Cadland Park. Cadland, the seat of ‘A
R Drummond Esquire’, was situated not far from Langdown, and
the Drummond family would have been suitable local members
of the landed gentry for Mary to be acquainted with socially. The
celebration was a Georgian version of a housewarming party, as
the family had newly moved into their grand house. The writer
of the article praises Mr Drummond for his kindness in inviting
his tenants to the festivities, and then goes on to describe Lady
Drummond and her guests: ‘The extreme condescension of Lady

E. Drummond, surrounded by her delightful juvenile family,
accompanied by the Marquis of Granby and Miss Tate, gave a
most interesting and pleasing effect to the scene.’ 69

In 1843 Mary attended another party, this time held by Mr
and Mrs Holloway of Marchwood near Hythe. The party was
described as a ‘grand ball and supper’ and it was attended by some
by now familiar people: the Sturgess-Bournes, the Drummonds,
Captain Willis and Mary, alongside a number of distinguished
lords and ladies and other families of the landed gentry.70 She
was also present at a gathering of the Hampshire Horticultural
Society in 1837 at the Archery Rooms, Southampton. At the
meeting she was elected as a member, and the author recounts
that ‘the attendance was numerous and genteel.’ After the meeting
members dined at a local inn together.71

Mary joined Mr Drummond’s family for another very special
gathering in 1838, in Fawley near Dibden, according to a
newspaper article reporting on the event.72 Everyone, from the
agricultural labourers and servants to the aristocracy and landed
gentry in the local area was invited, resulting in a crowd of
about 700 people gathered in a local field – all to celebrate the
coronation of Queen Victoria.

The article relates how Mr Drummond and his steward saw to it
that everyone present was given a fine meal, including beer for
all ages:

2 [sic] pounds of meat and 1 pound of bread should
be provided for every labouring man, the same for his
wife, and 1½ pounds of meat and 1 pound of bread for
each child. 3 pints of strong beer were also awarded
to every man and one pint to every woman and child.

A speech from Mr Drummond followed the meal, ending in a
toast to Her Majesty:

The hip hip hip and hurrah then followed in
succession with the most enthusiastic heartiness,
and it was long before the shouts ceased. ‘God save
the Queen’ was next given by the band, and a large
circle joined in singing the national anthem.

The writer then describes the dance that followed, with people
from all the social classes joining together:

Arrangements were then made for the dance.
Amongst the party who mixed with the groups
was observed the Earl and Countess of Carns, Lady
Gertrude Stanley, Miss Stanley, Miss Tate, Captain
Willis and family, Captain Dodds, The Rev. G. D.
Bowles and family, Holloway Esquire, John Truttle
Esquire, the Lady and family of A. R. Drummond
Esquire, and many others. A country dance was now
struck up, and ladies of title, of lofty pretensions and
noble descent, mingled at once with the jacketed
artisan and the plainly attired ‘maid of all work’. 73

For the people of Dibden and Fawley, rich and poor, the Victorian
era had arrived.

The beginnings of philanthropy

Alongside accounts of Mary socialising, there is only scant
evidence of her work as benefactor to good causes in the
Langdown area, but a few records do exist. The earliest concerns
a contribution made by Mary (and Captain Willis) to the Hythe
Hard landing area for boats on Southampton Water. Hythe,
which was then a village rather than the small town it is today,
was located on Southampton Water close to the Langdown estate.
A newspaper article in the Hampshire Chronicle in 1824 states
that the Hard was in desperate need of repair, so the great and

good from the local community joined forces to make voluntary
contributions to a repair fund.74 In another example, Mary
donated a stained-glass window to Dibden Church, following
repairs to the stonework of the eastern window. Dibden Church
would have been the local parish church for the Langdown
estate.75

Other than these, little else has emerged from the records until
after Mary’s death, when a bequest of £500 to Hampshire County
Hospital is reported.76 It seems that Mary’s focus, especially in
her later years, was on the poor of Loughborough and Mitcham,
areas in which poverty and deprivation were more widespread
than in the rural villages of Southampton Water. It is to the
former areas that she increasingly turned her attention.

Chapter 3

The London Socialite

‘A house in town! Everything that is charming.’ This exclamation
from Mrs Bennett in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice conveys
her excitement and delight on hearing that her daughter is to
marry the fabulously wealthy Mr Darcy.77 Written in 1813, Jane
Austen’s novel exemplifies the highly stratified nature of social
class in late Georgian times, when even within the landed gentry
there were levels of income and rank. Numbers of servants and
the ownership of a carriage marked you out from the lower levels
of the gentry, but one of the ultimate signs of a great income was
a home in London.78

The appeal of a house in the capital was not merely because it
was a clear signal of high status for the lucky few families of the
gentry class. It was also highly convenient as a place to stay while
travelling around the country. But perhaps above all it was a
place to socialise: to enjoy the best that the capital could offer in
the way of entertainment, social events and culture. It was also
a place to spend the winter months and participate in the well-
established and highly popular urban winter season, as depicted
by Amanda Vickery in her history of women in the Georgian era:
‘Like the nobility, the greater gentry flocked to London with the
frosts.’ 79

The Tate family, like the fictional Mr Darcy, were among this
elite group of families who had access to a home in London.
Their address was 21 Grosvenor Place, part of a grand terrace
of Georgian townhouses in what is now fashionable Belgravia,
running from Hyde Park Corner down the west side of
Buckingham Palace gardens. Most of the houses from a later

48 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Grosvenor Place and surrounding area. Cross’s New Plan of London
1859. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of
Scotland, https://maps.nls.uk/

Victorian rebuild of the terrace still exist today, although sadly
not number 21 which was replaced by a 1930s Art Deco building,
once known as Iron Trades House and now an office block. In
the 1840s the terrace was occupied by people of great wealth
and status, including aristocrats such as Sir Henry Peyton, 2nd
Baronet at number 19; Mary Pelham, Countess of Chichester at
number 22; and Sir John Swinburne, 6th Baronet at number 18.80
So, Mary was definitely not short of well-to-do neighbours.

It is unclear who owned the property, but during Mary’s lifetime
it was rented or held in trust for her, and before her it was used
by her father and by the second Mrs Tate, his stepmother, who
died there in 1798.81 A letter, written by George in 1820 from
21 Grosvenor Place, indicates it was in use by him during his
lifetime,82 and numerous letters and documents relating to Mary
confirm its use during hers. For Mary, an unmarried woman
who travelled quite frequently between Langdown and Burleigh
Hall, especially in her later years, a house in London was not
only appealing but also very useful as a place to stop over on her
journeys.

So how did Mary spend her time in the capital? It is not surprising
that she attended some iconic Georgian balls of the type that have
been made famous in books such as those by Jane Austen, as well
as in numerous TV and film adaptations. One such event, held
in Harley Street in Marylebone in April 1803, is a suitably grand
example. As reported in the British Press newspaper, the ball and
supper were held for Catherine, Countess Vorontsov, aged 29 at
the time. The ball was held at her father’s house, and ‘was attended
by about 150 of the most fashionable Visitors and Foreigners of
distinction in London.’ 83 The newspaper article describes the
scene and the first dance: ‘the Ball-room in the front of the house
was lighted up in a very elegant manner. At 10 o’clock the Ball
was opened by Baron Newby and Countess Woronzow [sic], to
the tune of Allan Ramsey.’ The meal then followed, at what might

CHAPTER 3: THE LONDON SOCIALITE

seem like a very late hour to modern partygoers: ‘at 12 o’clock
100 sat down to the most sumptuous supper, which was served
in the parlours. At one o’clock the dance was resumed, and at four
o’clock the company departed with a great deal of reluctance, but
not without a confident hope of soon meeting again.’ The article
concludes with a long list of aristocratic and genteel party guests,
including Lady Hawkesbury, Lady Jenkinson, Count du Pont,
Lord and Lady Malmesbury, Lord Fitzharris and ‘Miss Tate’ as
Mary was universally known. Catherine Vorontsova, the host
at this splendid occasion, was born Yekaterina Semyonovna
Vorontsova, and was a Russian noblewoman and daughter of the
then Russian Ambassador in Britain. She later went on to marry
the Earl of Pembroke in 1808.

‘Quae Genus Gives a Grand Party,’ by Thomas Rowlandson, from ‘The
History of Johnny Quae Genus, the Little Foundling of the late Dr.
Syntax: A Poem’, by William Combe, 1822.

Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Elisha Whittelsey
Collection, The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1959. Public Domain.

Supper parties, and a new friend

For Mary there would doubtless have been a great many grand
occasions to attend, but very often the gentry and aristocracy
were found visiting each other for smaller, more intimate
supper parties, parlour games and the like. Mary herself
appears to have been a consistently gracious and competent
host, in London as at Langdown or Burleigh. One account
of being invited by her is worth looking at in detail, as it is
exceptionally rich and revealing. It comes from the pen of
Anne Lister, Yorkshirewoman, owner of Shibden Hall and
manager of its estate, intrepid traveller, and diarist. Anne’s life
was recently made famous by the publication of her diaries and
their dramatisation in the BBC series Gentleman Jack. Anne
was an exceptionally brave and talented woman – intelligent,
outspoken and it seems rather snobbish. The story of her diaries
is itself fascinating: she began writing them in 1806 when she
was 15 and continued until her death in 1840, by which time
she had written around five million words. Around one sixth of
the diaries is written in secret code, and these sections record
Anne’s private thoughts, including explicit passages relating
to her lesbian love life and secret marriage to Ann Walker.
The diaries were found at Shibden Hall and deciphered in the
Victorian period by John Lister, a later relative of Anne’s, and
were almost burnt as the content was considered so shocking.
Nevertheless, John Lister wisely decided not to destroy them,
and hid them behind wall panelling at the hall, where they were
later found and eventually published. They are now recognised
as a hugely valuable source relating to gender studies and
women’s history in the United Kingdom.

It is from these diaries that we find some entries relating to
Mary. The first is on 4 July 1833 when Anne visits ‘Miss Tate’
twice: 84

Anne Lister of Shibden Hall (1791-1840), attributed to Joshua Horner

(1811-1881). Image courtesy of Calderdale Museums Service.

Kind note from Lady Stuart staying at Miss Tate’s
21 Grosvenor Place …had hired carriage and horses
and out at 1 ½ – called and sat ½ hour with Lady
Stuart at Miss Tate’s, with Lady Stuart apart, hardly
saw Miss Tate but she asked me to dinner …

at Miss Tate’s at 7 5/… – nobody but Miss Tate, Lady
Stuart and myself – Miss Tate an elderly maiden lady,
very plain, neither much mannerism, nor haut ton
[high fashion], but very musical (plays well and had
the remains of a good voice and manner of singing)
and apparently very good – must have a good fortune
to have her house and live so well in London and,
besides, her place Langdown near Southampton –
evidently an useful friend of Lady Stuart’s otherwise
not a person whose rank or manners would get her
into Lady Stuart’s society – home at 11 ¾ …85

This physical and personal description of Mary (including, in italics,
the rather snide comment about her rank and manners which
Anne had recorded in her secret code) is revealing. While Mary
is described as plain and not ‘haut ton’, she makes up for this by
being talented musically and, according to Anne, somehow useful
socially to an aristocrat like Lady Stuart. As we have seen in the
previous chapter, the Stuart family and Mary appeared to have had
quite a close friendship – certainly close enough for Lady Stuart to
have been staying with Mary in Grosvenor Place.

Further invitations, larger gatherings, and a dandy parson

The day after this initial invitation Anne is invited a second time to
Mary’s on the evening of Friday 5 July, and she describes Mary as a
host who is ‘anxious to please.’ She is then invited again on Sunday
7 July to a much larger supper gathering at which she is joined by:

• Lady Stuart de Rothesay (daughter-in-law of the older
Lady Stuart and Mary’s friend from Langdown)

• The two misses Northey (probably sisters of Harriet
Northey who died at Langdown in 1822)

• Sir George Rich

• Colonel Bowes

• ‘Mr Halsey-Moore’ – the Reverend John Fitzmoore
Halsey, Mary’s half-brother Richard’s son. Anne tartly
describes him as a ‘dandy parson’

• Mrs Moore – Sarah Moore-Halsey, wife of John
Fitzmoore Halsey and heiress to the Gaddesdon House
estate 86

On Tuesday 9 July an even bigger dinner party takes place at
Mary’s with about 15 guests, including the following:

• Alexander Cornewall Duff-Gordon, Baronet, Lady
Caroline Duff-Gordon and her sisters

• His brother Cosmo Lewis Duff-Gordon

• Lady Stuart de Rothesay and her husband and two
daughters

• Donald Cameron of Lochiel, husband of Vere Hobart
(Anne had previously had a dalliance with Vere but Vere
married Donald in 1832)

On Thursday 11 July the invitations continue. This time it is to the
older Lady Stuart’s home in Richmond where Mary plays Vere’s
piano. On Friday 12 July they meet again, and Anne spends time
talking to Mary alone:

Sat talking to Miss Tate for some time – she said I
reminded her of her father who used to say the world
was like a stage coach – if one was not ready to go
with it, one must be left behind – she said how many
would be glad of me for a companion … a little while
with Lady Stuart in her dressing room … then reading

or half asleep in the sitting room by myself. Miss
Tate drove out in her phaeton at 2 – then had Lady
Stuart with me; Lady Stuart and Miss Tate against
my doing more than Saint Petersburg and Moscow (I
had talked of an excursion to the Ural Mountains). It
would be odd and talked of …87

Again on Monday 15 July Anne is invited to Mary’s, along with
Captain and Lady Stuart, and she visits Mary on the following
day but finds she has gone out. Anne goes back to see Vere
Hobart and tells her she wishes Mary could go with her on her
trip to Russia.

Following this flurry of visits and invitations, Anne departs for
Europe, but her diaries record that she thinks often of Mary
and her good advice regarding her travels. It appears that Mary
thinks often of Anne too, as Anne receives several letters from
Lady Stuart in which she mentions that Mary is enquiring after
her. On 5 November Anne writes:

Had had a very rough passage – my note or letter to
Miss Tate was merely to say I had great pleasure in
sending her a barrel of Norwegian anchovies that I
only hoped she would like and I was sure Lady Stuart
would desire her butler to forward – I thanked Miss
Tate for her so kind inquiries after me and my plans
– should not plan my future route till March the time
of my departure … often thought of Miss Tate and
her good advice – had a nice companion here and a
pleasant journey thro’ France and Germany – much
more pleased with everything here than I expected –
having my friend Lady Harriet de Hagemann always
to go to made me feel quite at home – had settled
myself here for the winter amid all the agrément of
good society – the climate like the north of our own

island – and the country with its fine beech woods
and green pastures reminded me of England – begin
and concluded with my dear Miss Tate…88

While Anne writes of Mary in a rather formal manner as ‘Miss
Tate,’ this was a convention at the time and it is clear that they
had become friends or at least friendly acquaintances. A shared
interest in travel seems to have been the key to their mutual
regard, and probably the fact that both were unmarried heiresses
and independent landowners. They were in many ways kindred
spirits, and it was fortunate for both that Lady Stuart brought
them together. The anchovies, it appears, were greatly enjoyed by
Mary who wrote back to Anne to thank her.89

Was Mary Tate, like Anne, a lesbian? The question has been asked
by members of the local community but no evidence either way
has emerged, so it is possible but cannot be proved. It is significant
that both Mary and Anne did not marry, and in late Georgian
times this was unusual.90 Jill Liddington reflects on this in Female
Fortune, her book on Anne Lister, in which she argues that it was
Anne’s refusal to marry, rather than her sexuality, which really
marked her out from others at a time when marrying was the
best route to social advancement and security. It took courage to
go against the norm, but both women successfully did so. On the
other hand, while Anne’s lesbian flirtations and masculine dress
were considered odd, and to some repugnant, to others they
were tolerated and even admired. Mary, it appears, was among
the tolerant and admiring group.91

Both Anne and Mary lived their lives to the full and made the
most of the fact that they were independent propertied women.
Anne was more unusual in seeking to develop her estate as
a business and taking a very active part in running it, as well
as travelling without a male spouse to remote countries. Mary
was somewhat more conventional in her active pursuit of

philanthropic projects, although, as we shall see in Chapter 5,
she pursued them with equally business-like zeal.

In 1840 the intrepid Anne and her wife Ann Walker embarked on
an ambitious journey beyond Moscow to the Caucasus, but Anne
sadly died in Georgia of a fever aged 49. Her body was returned
to England by Ann Walker and buried in Halifax Minster, where
part of her tombstone can still be seen today.92

The servants

The almost daily entertaining of guests described in Anne’s
journals was a normal and expected part of the lifestyle of the
aristocracy and landed gentry in Georgian London. It was of
course enabled by many thousands of servants living in their
homes, attending to the needs of diners at their dinner tables
and labouring behind the scenes in their kitchens and sculleries.
Mary’s household was no different: according to the 1841 census
of Grosvenor Place there were ten servants living under her roof,
ranging in age from 25 to 40 and comprising six women and
four men (see Appendix 2 for further information). It seems this
was about average for Grosvenor Place, and the census tells us
that her neighbours around her employed a similar number: for
example, the Countess of Chichester living at number 22 had a
list of 12. According to Vickery, while aristocratic families would
have required a hierarchy of servants with senior managers such
as a housekeeper and a butler managing the lower ranks, genteel
households might typically have employed less than ten, with
seven being the norm for many families.93 Since Grosvenor Place
was an address for both gentry and aristocracy, it is not surprising
for households there to exceed the average, and there may have
been a modest hierarchy with one or two senior members. The
1841 census does not normally state specific servant roles, but in
Mary’s household one servant, Banks Wright, aged 30, is listed

as a Clerk. His job would probably have been to manage supplies
of food and household items, and to keep accounts to ensure the
household funds were spent as directed by Mary. As such his role
would have been a more senior one. He is listed as living with
one dependant, Sophy Wright, also aged 30, probably his wife.

Since most genteel households lacked a hierarchy of management,
the mistress of the house would have been required to manage
the servants, and this took up much of their time. The task
required good managerial skills, not only in planning meals
and organising the work, but also managing the servants and
their behaviour. Vickery describes the constant instability of the
servant workforce, with a high staff turnover and with servants
often absconding and requiring emergency replacements.94 This
would especially have been the case in London, where servants
were constantly in demand in large numbers. Thus, while Mary’s
servants at Langdown ranged widely in age, at Grosvenor Place

Round the corner from Mary’s home: Regent’s Park, London, 1829.
Engraving by W Wallis from a drawing by Thomas H Shepherd.

iStock.com/Retroimages.

they were all relatively young and were probably in the main short-
term employees. It appears that none of them were locals, and one
of the male servants, Edward Russell, was from Scotland. The
work of managing this particularly unstable workforce was clearly
a price you would have to pay to live the high life in the capital.

Culture and philanthropy

In addition to socialising, managing her genteel lifestyle and
enjoying music, Mary appears to have had a particular interest
in owning and appreciating fine art. A visitor to her home at
Burleigh Hall in the later years of her life remarked on the tasteful
collection of paintings displayed there,95 and in her will Mary
bequeaths to Lady Stuart de Rothesay her daughter’s drawing of
the Madonna by Carlo Dolci.96 It seems that the appreciation of
fine art mattered to Mary, and a painting once owned by her is
in fact well-known and now hangs in the National Gallery in
London.

The painting in question is entitled Portrait of François Langlois
by Anthony van Dyck, and it is now jointly owned by the
National Gallery in London and the Barber Institute of Fine
Arts in Birmingham. The portrait depicts Langlois, an engraver,
publisher and art dealer and friend of van Dyck’s, dressed as a
shepherd and playing a small bagpipe. It was probably painted
in the 1630s, and the artist is said to have painted two copies
of it. The artwork can be linked to Mary through a newspaper
article from 1840, which relates enthusiastically that Anthoni
Minasi, a renowned and very skilled engraver of the period, had
just produced an exquisite pen and ink drawing of the Bagpiper
painting in the possession of Miss Tate of Grosvenor Place, with
her permission. The pen and ink drawing is to be presented to
Her Majesty Queen Victoria.97

Mary’s interests also included the natural world, science, travel and
matters of faith, and her name appears in the archives among the
subscribers to British Entomology in 1829 and A Journal of a Three
Months’ Tour in Portugal, Spain, Africa, &c., by the Marchioness
of Londonderry in 1843. She is also mentioned in the minutes of
the Royal Institution, a leading charity dedicated to the pursuit

Portrait of Francois Langlois by Anthony van Dyck,

of scientific knowledge. As was common at the time, she was a
subscriber to Christian publications, which included The Sermons
of Thomas Stuart Lyle Vogan, Oxford academic and theologian, in
1837, and the Anniversary Sermon Preached in the Cathedral Church
of St. Paul, by Charles-Richard, Lord Bishop of Llandaff in 1826.

Like many women of her time and social class, Mary chose to
spend her days not only on cultural, social and leisure activities,
but also on pursuits which would benefit those less fortunate in
society and which would accord with her Christian principles.
As Frank Prochaska argues in his seminal book on philanthropy
and women: ‘philanthropy was the vocation that most often
sprang to mind. Throughout the nineteenth century it was seen
as the leisured woman’s most obvious outlet for self-expression.’ 98
As the century progressed through the late Georgian period into
the Victorian era, the options for philanthropic work increased
dramatically: there were charity bazaars, fairs and concerts, as
well as charitable institutions to which women could subscribe.
They could opt for more active interventions, such as serving on
committees of charitable institutions, and they could even work
on the front line, visiting the poor in their homes, on the streets,
and in hospitals, workhouses, asylums and prisons.

It is probable that, given her status at the higher level of the
gentry class, Mary’s attendance at bazaars would be somewhat
limited to the most prestigious ones, and sure enough we find
in the newspaper archives a rather grand example of a charity
bazaar which Mary attended. It took place on 1 June 1843 in
what was then known as Greenwich Hospital (now the Old
Royal Naval College) and is reported in an article in the English
Chronicle and Whitehall Evening Post. Held in aid of the funds of
the Shipwrecked Fishermen and Mariners’ Society, the event is
described as ‘a grand fete and fancy bazaar,’ and was attended by
many of the great and good, including no less than Prince Albert,
husband of Queen Victoria, as well as the Queen Dowager and

the Duchess of Gloucester. Mary is listed among a group of ladies
from the gentry and aristocracy who are to ‘preside’ at the bazaar:

The stalls to be fitted up in the grand saloon of the
Painted Hall are 20 in number, and tables for prints,
flowers etc, while the vestibule will be appropriated
for refreshments …The royal family will be received
at the west gate, where splendid marquees will be
erected and all the pensioners drawn out, headed by
their proper officers. The bands of the royal artillery
will be added to those of the Coldstream guards,
marines and the asylum.

No doubt an event such as this resulted in substantial donations
and funds for the charity concerned.99

Grand Fancy Bazaar in Greenwich Hospital, in Aid of the Queen
Adelaide Naval Fund, 1852.

Image courtesy of Penta Springs Limited / Alamy Stock Photo.

From the 1820s until her death, Mary’s name also appears in the
archives among the subscribers to charitable institutions with
Christian and humanitarian associations. These include the
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; the National Society
for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the
Established Church; the Adult Orphan Institution (along with
her cousin Louisa Pinfold); the Children’s Friend Society for the
Prevention of Juvenile Vagrancy; the Benevolent or Stranger’s
Friend Society; and the School for the Indigent Blind. In 1813 she
appears, along with her father and Uncle Reverend Benjamin Tate,
in a newspaper article in the London Courier and Evening Gazette
which lists subscribers to a charitable cause relating to Russia. The
article relates that the subscriptions were collected at the Crown
and Anchor, a tavern and coffee house in the Strand known at
the time for being a venue for meetings of political and charitable
groups. It states that the purpose of the collection was ‘the relief
of the poor suffering inhabitants of the different governments of
Russia, through which the French Armies have passed, in the late
invasion of that Empire.’ 100 The French invasion of Russia in 1812
was known to have resulted in a massive toll on human life, both
of soldiers and civilians, and the wider impact of the Napoleonic
Wars in Britain and Europe at that time would have been a matter
of great concern in the collective psyche.

Mary clearly enjoyed her times in London: socialising with the
influential and wealthy, appreciating art and music, engaging in
lively and intellectual discussions, and finding fulfilment in the
pursuit of worthy causes of various kinds. But she did not merely
want to follow the fashionable London crowd; her philanthropic
ambitions, enabled by her status as a woman of independent
means, would lead her along a new path of her own making. The
first step on that path was to turn her attention to Mitcham, and
the possibility of building an almshouse.

64 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Central Mitcham, with Mary’s almshouses to the south of Lower Green (or Cricket Green), and
Mitcham Parish Church to the north west. Ordnance Survey One-inch Map of Surrey 1871, Sheet
XIII. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland, https://maps.nls.uk/

Chapter 4

An Almshouse in Mitcham

In the early part of the 19th century, a picturesque cricket green
in the village of Mitcham was overlooked by a genteel house
belonging to the Tate family. The Mitcham green, famous for its
ancient origins, had been the scene of many notable matches,
where players took part in their ‘high beaver hats, white cord
breeches, silk stockings and buckle shoes’. 101

According to Eric Montague, the Tates first appeared in Mitcham
in the early 18th century, and they soon became ‘prominent and
respected members of the community.’ 102 During the century
that followed, their home on the Cricket Green passed through
the family to George’s brother Benjamin, and he bequeathed it to
Mary in his will. Mary did not need to keep it for herself as she
was by then living at Langdown, and by the early 19th century
it was occupied by a series of tenants over a period of several
decades. The last of these occupied the house until 1824 when
it was re-purposed as a home for the mentally unwell, known
as The Recovery. Montague rightly proposes that this use of the
house is likely to have been a decision of Mary’s, following the
death of her father and of her uncle Benjamin in the early 1820s.
Montague also emphasises that, compared to many institutions
of the period, the provision of care at The Recovery was relatively
innovative, and the apartments and environment of the house
and garden, when inspected, were found to be pleasant and
comfortable.103

It was in the mid-1820s that Mary began making plans for an
almshouse, which was to replace the family house on the Cricket
Green site. Mary decided that it would accommodate twelve
poor retired women, who would each receive accommodation

free from rent and outgoings, plus a weekly allowance and coal
for heating. The women were to be over 50 years of age, and
‘widows or unmarried of respectable character.’ 104

The poor of Mitcham

Mary’s decision to build an almshouse was not an unusual one
– many almshouses around the country were built by wealthy
philanthropists in the late Georgian and early Victorian period.
Like them, her decision to use her family’s land for this purpose
would have been informed by the plight of the local poor.

‘North East View of an Old Mansion at Mitcham, Surrey,

Belonging to M. Tate’ – watercolour signed ‘J C B 1827’,

reproduced by permission of London Borough of Merton.

In the 1820s when Mary Tate’s Almshouses were built,
Mitcham was a village of approximately 4,000 people and it
had a developed industrial economy around the Wandle River,
with textile, flour, copper, paper and snuff mills, as well as what
has been described as the first public railway in the world.105
However, after the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) the country
experienced an economic depression, and the introduction of
the Corn Laws led to food cost inflation. Industrial workers
were laid off, and the demand for poor relief put a strain on the
existing system. This eventually resulted in the new Poor Law
Amendment Act of 1834, under which parishes were grouped
into Poor Law Unions.

For those who were able-bodied, the only relief on offer would
then be in one of the Union workhouses. Mitcham’s first
workhouse, built in 1742, was at Figges Marsh; it was replaced
in 1777 by a new building to the north of Mitcham Common
which housed about 70 people. After the introduction of the
Poor Law Unions, Mitcham was linked with Croydon and
the workhouse ‘inmates’ (as they were called) were moved to
Croydon to save money. By coincidence, one of the Croydon
workhouses was on the site on which Elis David Almshouses
now stands.106

Meanwhile, for those who were not eligible for the workhouse,
parish-based ‘out-relief’ continued to be the main means of
support, but even this was not available to all. Mary was aware of
the issue, so she founded a small local charity in 1817 for people
who could not get parish relief. ‘Miss Tate’s Charity’ was endowed
by her with investments to support the poor of Mitcham, and the
dividends were to be used to purchase bread and meat annually
on the day before Christmas Day to distribute to them.

In any event, it appears that the parish relief was woefully
insufficient to meet people’s needs, leading to one local resident

CHAPTER 4: AN ALMSHOUSE IN MITCHAM

writing to the local vicar in dismay at the extent of the poverty
(with around 600 Mitcham residents in need of poor relief) and
the need for ‘Miss Tate’s bounty’ to go further:

I can … only excuse my astonishment at there living
so many hundred poor at Mitcham who exist within
parish relief, and should think if this is the case, that
something more might be spared out of the poor
rates for those unfortunate old women who were
refused the bounty, on the reason of having two
shillings a week from the parish, to starve upon …107

It was clear that the time was right for the new almshouse, at least
to provide some local inhabitants with security and relief from
poverty.

68 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

‘Alms-houses at Mitcham, Surrey, built and endowed by Miss Tate,
A.D.1829′, engraving from The Gentleman’s Magazine, March 1830,
pt.2 p.202, reproduced by permission of London Borough of Merton.

The new almshouse

Mary’s almshouse first opened to residents in late 1829. The
design and layout of the building chosen by Mary was popular
among almshouse builders at the time, and well-suited to the
needs of the residents, with twelve dwellings arranged around a
rectangular front courtyard. Each resident had two rooms, and
most of the women shared a front door and entrance corridor
with their neighbour. At the rear of the building the architect
included two small outhouses, with the architectural features of
the main block reproduced in miniature: each containing a privy,
a wash house, and a refuse bunker. The building was designed
in the Tudor-gothic style with some beautiful features, including
cast iron lattice window casements, a middle gable decorated
with the Tate coat of arms, and numerous attractively shaped
chimneys.108

Mary ensured that the building would be well looked after by
setting up an almshouse charity, selecting local worthies as
trustees, and endowing the charity with sufficient funds for the
upkeep of the building and the residents’ allowances. She also
took an active interest in the progress of the building works, even
when inconvenienced by ill-health, as evidenced in a letter she
wrote from Tunbridge Wells to Mrs Simpson, the wife of one of
the trustees, in 1829:

Dear Mrs Simpson

I forgot to write you a line before I left town last
Friday, to say that I settled with Mr Buckler to put up
the gates on my own account for the poor women,
and they will be done, I trust, properly. The pump
will be put up in a fortnight. I was advised to come
here for the benefit of drinking the water, and the air,
which I hope will quite recruit my strength. Anything
you have to communicate will be forwarded to me

from Grosvenor Place or if you like to direct straight
to me Post Office, Tunbridge Wells.

Believe me yours most truly obliged

M Tate 109

As was customary for almshouse charities, a set of rules was
drawn up, including the option for the trustees to hire a matron to
ensure they were followed. The rules stated that the almswomen
were required to attend church each day and twice on Sundays,
and the gate of the building was locked at eleven o’clock at night
in summer and ten o’clock in winter. Infringement of the rules
could result in penalties, including in the worst cases being
asked to leave. While this may seem strict to modern readers,
it was typical of the time, and the rules were certainly much less
draconian than those of the workhouse.

The applicants

As is still the case today, there was keen interest in securing a
place at the almshouses, and it was not long before a waiting
list developed. According to the deeds, Mary herself chose the
occupants during her lifetime, and the committee of trustees set
up to run the almshouses implemented her wishes. A Register
of Applicants to the almshouses, held by The London Archives,
contains hundreds of entries dating between 1833 and 1943,
providing a rich source of information on women who made it
into the almshouses, as well as those who did not. Some women
died while on the waiting list, and some applicants were deemed
inappropriate on application, having received poor relief, among
other reasons.110

The criteria for entrance to the almshouses were fairly typical of the
time. As Mary’s almshouse deed stipulated, her accommodation
was for people who had not received parochial relief within the

last five years of admission. The deed specified a preference for
women who had ‘lived in the capacity of domestic servants, or
decayed tradeswomen, or widows of tradesmen’, and the women
could live there as long as they remained unmarried.111

On paper it was important that applicants belonged to the
Parish of Mitcham and that they were in the habit of attending
services at the Parish Church. Most stated that they were Parish
Church members, but Charlotte Cave, an applicant who applied
in 1833, said that she had been attending the Wesleyan meeting
and would like to continue this in the evenings alongside Parish
Church attendance. This would probably not have gone down
very well with Mary and the trustees, who would have preferred
the almswomen to be Church of England members through and
through; it appears she did not gain a place.

Ann Smith, a spinster born in Stepney in London, may have
been altogether too controversial a candidate for the trustees. She
declared at her application meeting that she had ‘attended divine
service at the Parish Church, except since I lived with Mr Edwin

Notice to candidates for Admission, February 1830.

The London Archives, A/FWA/C/J/19/002.

Image reproduced with kind permission of Family Action.

Chart’ (for whom she worked as a servant). ‘The care of his children
and my increasing lameness has prevented my coming to Mitcham
Church. I have the last two and a half years attended evening service
at the Dissenting Chapel because Mrs Chart could not spare me
during the day.’ The clerk who recorded the entries in the register
tersely recorded in the entry: ‘ineligible – being determined on
persevering in absenting herself from the Parish Church.’ Even
though her former employer Mr Chart was a local Vestry Clerk
and well known in Mitcham society, she did not get a place.

In the main, however, while applicants stated they attended the
Parish Church, they seem to have not been big churchgoers, with
many attending divine sacrament only rarely, and some stating
that they had not done so at all but were ‘desirous of doing so.’
This seems to have been enough to satisfy the trustees.

Other entry criteria included living in the Parish of Mitcham and
having had a respectable job. For many applicants, respectability
came from having worked in service for the gentry. For example,
Eleanor Bragg, who applied to the almshouses in 1833, but does
not appear to have been given a place, worked for a Mr Trotter
in Soho Square for four years but left service on account of an
illness. Elizabeth Soane, who did get a place, worked for Mr and
Mrs Langdale for 20 years, first as a housemaid, then housekeeper.
The Langdales were Catholics and Mrs Langdale gave Elizabeth
a beautiful and very large bible in gratitude for her service: it
is now in the possession of her five-times great niece Madeline
Healey. Elizabeth left the Langdales after Mr Langdale’s death
and gave up work in service to open a toy and stationery shop in
Mitcham in 1829.

Likewise, Elizabeth Harbin, another successful applicant who is
listed in the 1861 census as a resident, worked for 13 years with
a Mr Barnard as a lady’s maid, then with Miss Adams as a cook;
she also kept a school for 2 years.

Mary Ibbotson, who was living in the almshouses at the time of
the censuses of 1851 and 1861, stated on application that she had
‘lived five years with Mrs Wing at Bedford and married from
that lady’s place 41 years ago.’ 112 She explained that she was ‘not
brought up to any business but got my living by needlework.’
The register of applicants notes that she succeeded Mrs Weeks
as a resident at the almshouses in 1847, and that her place was
confirmed by Mary Tate herself in a letter to the Reverend J H
Wharton, one of the trustees.

Elizabeth Carrett, who said that she had worked as a laundress,
was in service for 4 years as laundrymaid, then ‘at Mr Dempster’s
37 years since at Mitcham.’ She left service to be married, and
lived in Mitcham for 27 years until she was widowed, a year
before applying to the almshouses.

Many of the applicants had worked in trades, or even in manual
labour. Sarah Kingham, for example, was employed as a dairy
maid near Foots Cray. She was unfortunately disqualified from an
offer of a place as she had been in receipt of parochial relief. The
case of Elizabeth Hinckley, a 76-year-old spinster who applied in
1833, is interesting, as she had worked in the ‘physic gardens’ of
her father, brother and nephew in Mitcham from her childhood.

The signature of Elizabeth Soane, at the front of a Catholic bible given
to her by her employer Mrs Langdale while she was in her service. The
bible is now in the possession of her five-times great niece Madeline
Healey, who lives in the Merton area. Photo by the author.

Mitcham was known to be a place not only of factories and shops
but also horticulture, as is described in an entry for Mitcham
in Kelly’s Surrey Directory of 1867: ‘the soil is rich black mould,
laid out partly in market gardens and partly for medicinal plants
for the London market – rhubarb, liquorice, lavender, mint,
camomile, poppies, peppermint, wormwood, aniseed etc. Part
of these are used for the manufacture of cordials and perfumes,
particularly peppermint water and oil of lavender.’ 113 Miss
Hinckley did not get a place, it appears, as she is listed as living in
Figges Marsh in 1837, when she was visited by The Revd Herbert
Randolph due to ill health and being ‘deformed.’ 114

Like Elizabeth Soane, many of the women who worked in trades
were employed in shops. Charlotte Cave worked in her husband’s
shoemaker’s shop for 20 years, after which she carried on the
business until 1832, just before she applied to the almshouses.
Hannah Drewett, who applied in 1847 and secured an almshouse
place, was a dressmaker in Mitcham. Martha Botten, who lived
at the almshouses for several decades before being ‘removed to
the infirmary’, was an assistant to her aunt who kept a grocer’s
shop. And Eleanor Bragg was ‘brought up in the calico business
by her uncle, Mr Howard of Phipps Bridge, Master Printer.’ She
then kept a chandler’s (candle maker’s) shop in Church Lane
(now Church Road) from 1815 after leaving the service of the
aforementioned Mr Trotter.

Perhaps the most unusual career path amongst the women listed in
the early years of the Register of Applications is that of Ann Haydon.
Following her marriage in 1815, she went into the baking business
with her husband in Camden Town. She was later widowed and
went on to work as Matron of the Poor Law Union Workhouse
in Duppas Hill, Croydon. She worked for the Guardians of the
Croydon Union for nearly ten years, and was still there at the time
of application. According to the Register, she did not move into the
almshouses as she ‘left the country and settled in one of the colonies.’

There is a poignant reminder in the Register of Applicants that,
for tradeswomen or those who worked in service in the late
Georgian era, there was certainly no guarantee of an education
and the benefits of literacy. The Register reveals that the system
for interviewing candidates quickly became formal after the
founding of the almshouses, and all candidates were expected
to have read the almshouse rules and conform to them. In some
cases the women could not read so the rules were read to them.
The women were required to sign the Register with a witness
present, but for Ann Storer, Jane Rickman, Sarah Kingman and
Elizabeth Carrett, this was not possible, and their entry in the
Register is signed with the mark of a cross only.

A community of women

In his book on the Cricket Green area of Mitcham, including
a chapter on Mary Tate’s Almshouses, Eric Montague paints a
vivid picture of a uniform group of women making their way to
Mitcham Parish Church.115 According to Montague, the women
wore special clothing (provided by the charity), including woollen
capes, and would therefore easily be recognised by the locals as
they made their way through the village.116 However, there is no
mention of special clothing in Mary’s almshouses’ Trust Deed
rules, drawn up in 1829. While some almshouses in England did
provide clothes for their residents in earlier periods of history
(for example, Elis David Almshouses in Croydon), by the end
of the Georgian period, most almshouses were offering their
residents a weekly allowance as an alternative, and it appears this
was the case at Mary’s almshouses.117

The almshouse community was not as uniform as one might think
in other ways as well. For example, while most of the women
were local to Mitcham at the time of application, many of them
had been born elsewhere. Mary Ibbotson came from Rutland;

Elizabeth Trimby from Wiltshire; Mary Bincks from Sussex;
Ann Kingshott from Lincoln; Rebecca Chilman from Suffolk;
and Betty Dale from Lancashire, to name a few. Elizabeth Garn,
a shoemaker’s widow, was born in Balbec in France, and the
Register of Applicants states that her brother-in-law Mr Franc
Godefroy would be sending her an allowance from abroad while
she was living at the almshouses. The archives do not tell us why
she came to England from the continent.

Furthermore, not all of the women were of a similar age, and not
all of the dwellings single occupancy as the rules required. While
the ages reported in the censuses are occasionally inaccurate,
they correspond reasonably closely with the ages in the Register
of Applicants when the women are mentioned in both sources.
Between 1833 and 1860 the residents’ ages ranged between 44
and 82, and the census of 1861 records that Mary Bincks had
reached the grand old age of 93 years old. The younger women,
including Martha Botten and Ann Woodman, are listed as carers
to the older ones. Martha Botten, for example, is listed in the
1841 census as living next door to Frances Botten, aged 75, so we
can guess that she was was initially her mother’s carer; both women
were widows at that point. In the 1851 census she appears as ‘Nurse’
to another resident, Elizabeth Trimby (aged 82), and living in the
same dwelling with her, while her mother Frances Botten is absent
from the list, presumably deceased. The role of Nurse is, like that of
Matron, mentioned in the almshouses’ Trust Deed.

Likewise, Ann Woodman is listed in the 1851 census as a
‘Servant’ and living together with Susannah Rose in the same
dwelling. The same is true of Mary Bincks, who was living with
Elizabeth Coppard, her Nurse, in 1861. It is not surprising that
several almswomen needed live-in carers and this appears to have
continued into the Victorian period and beyond, probably at the
behest of the trustees. In 1881, for example, Pamela Holden’s
daughter Mary, aged 44, was living with her as her ‘general

servant,’ and in 1871 Mary Bayley was living with her daughter-
in-law Sarah, aged 45.

The entries in the Register of Applicants, together with the
census information, evoke an image of women from different
backgrounds and varying in age, caring for each other as a
community. The support they gave each other enabled many of
them to live well into their 70s and beyond, secure and supported
in their own homes. This was certainly their founder’s wish, and
made very clear in the almshouse rules, read to the residents
once a month:

That all the Members do behave themselves civilly and
orderly, avoid giving any provocation, and by mutual
forbearance and kind offices study to promote the
happiness of each other … is the only way in which
the Members can make themselves happy, both here
and hereafter, and promote the object of their pious
and benevolent benefactor and founder.118

Interestingly, neither the Register of Applicants nor the census
records mention the role of Matron, which is included in the
almshouse rules. Under the rules, the Matron would keep order
in the almshouses and note down any infringements, as well as
lock the main door to the building at night. In the almshouses’
Trust Deed it states that ‘The trustees shall be at liberty from
time to time if they think it expedient to appoint from among
the said almswomen any one to be the Matron Superior or
Inspectress of the other almswomen.’ 119 Perhaps, however, they
did not think it expedient and this was not done in practice,
because anyone being appointed to this role would likely be
rather unpopular with the other residents. Instead, it may be
that the trustees managed the almshouses with some external
help when needed.

Who you knew – and who would vouch for you

In addition to being a community of women living together,
the almshouse was part of a wider community of residents and
trustees, applicants and sponsors. For anyone attempting to
secure a home in the new almshouses, the question ‘to whom
are you known in Mitcham or elsewhere?’ was of utmost
importance, and it appears among the standard questions asked
of all candidates in the Register of Applicants.

Most candidates were known either in Mitcham or in the wider
local area, and some would have scored particularly high marks
by being known to the local group of Mitcham sponsors who
supported the almshouses. These included the trustees and their
wives, local gentry who would have known the Tate family, and
other Mitcham worthies such as the Vicar, as well as Mary herself.
One such candidate was Mary Ibbotson, who knew The Revd
Mapleton, Mrs Simpson and Mrs Cranmer among others, ensuring
serious consideration of her application (which was successful).

Two of the local wives, Mrs Emily Simpson and Mrs Elizabeth
Cranmer, were particularly influential, having been recruited
as patrons of the Mitcham Auxiliary Bible Society by the Vicar,
Revd Herbert Randolph. Their allocated patch of Mitcham
was the Cricket Green area, where they supported the Vicar in
visits to residents, distribution of bibles and collection of society
subscriptions. Mrs Simpson was the wife of William Simpson of
The Canons, a grand Restoration style house across the green from
the almshouses. She had inherited the house from her brother
Richard Cranmer, and Mrs Cranmer, who lived nearby, was his
widow.120

Mr Simpson was a trustee in the early days of the almshouses,
and within the Simpson Papers collection of letters in Merton
archives we see his wife using her influence behind the scenes,
and receiving letters from a range of sponsors suggesting suitable

women. Thus a letter from A.R. Lowndes dated February 1851
included the request: ‘My dear Mrs Simpson … we do not know
whether Mrs Chilman is a party entered for a vacancy, but should
she be, aunt would be obliged if you would interest yourself for
her … as an industrious hard-working woman, but you are not to
set aside your own pensioners in preference of her.’ Fortunately, it
appears that Mr and Mrs Simpson were able to grant the request,
as Rebecca Chilman’s name appears in the 1861 census as an
almshouse resident.

Mary Wharton, a friend of Mrs Simpson, wrote a long and chatty
letter to her from St Helier in Jersey (undated but probably written
in the 1850s), where she was staying for health reasons with her
husband. In it she gave careful thought to a scheme which would
result in benefits to more than one person (including herself) if a
place were to be offered to Betty Dale:

Mr Wharton bids me therefore say to you that he
thinks Old Mrs Dale would be the most eligible
person for the vacant almshouse, as being the one
who is most in want of it, and so respectable a
person, and then poor Miss [Esther] Dale could go
out to service, where good food and freedom from
anxiety would probably restore her to health. Some
time ago she said she would like to come to me and
be my maid and the children’s, and I think nothing
could be so good for her, but she could not then leave
her mother. If, however, Mr Simpson agrees with Mr
Wharton that it would be a charity to put her mother
with the almshouse, it might save Esther’s life to have
a comfortable place, near her mother and brothers,
with good food and ‘medical attendance’! [sic] in
the house. She is often my patient now. Should Mr
Simpson decide on offering the almshouse to Mrs
Dale, perhaps you would be so kind as to speak to

Esther and ask her if she still retains her wish to
come to me, and if she does, we will make our other
household arrangements to suit this.121

Betty Dale was elected as a resident in 1853, and one hopes that she
was as pleased with the arrangement as others would have been.

In another letter to Mrs Simpson, however, it appears that
a suggestion made did not meet with success. The sad case of
Mrs Meredith is told in a gem of a letter dated 1838 from a Mr
Frederick Lindsay Cole of fashionable Chelsea:

My Dear Madam

I am about to write to you concerning our servant
Mrs Meredith, whose infirm state of health and great
age compels us to part with – although we were much
disappointed in her, both as a cook and housekeeper
(as she could not write, and cooking she knew little
about). Yet we have become attached to her from
her uniform good conduct and great willingness
to please, and are therefore very loath to send her
away until we could see her in some almshouse or
elsewhere where she might pass the rest of her days
in comfort.

I understood from Charlotte at the time we engaged
her that as soon as a vacancy occurred, Mrs Miller
and other ladies of Mitcham intended to present her
with such in your almshouses at Mitcham – I shall
be very glad to hear if you could interest yourself for
her as she seems to wish to return to Mitcham, even
should she be unable to gain an appointment.

She has saved about £25 and this I believe to be all
the poor old woman has to live upon. I assure you
my dear Madam we have kept her much to our

inconvenience and discomfort, and as she suffers so
very much from her legs, I cannot venture on another
winter with her, as it would impose so much on Mrs
Cole who herself is naturally delicate. I have written
all this to excite your sympathy and influence, and if
I had the pleasure of knowing Mrs Miller, I should
take the liberty of writing a long expostulating letter
upon her sending me a very useless servant but a
very deserving and excellent woman.122

Poor Mrs Meredith, the ‘very useless servant,’ appears not to have
gained a place at the almshouses. Her situation would therefore
have been very difficult, as she was not wanted by her employer,
she would not have been able to move on with good references,
and her options were limited in terms of where else she could go.

A source of income

It was common for almshouse founders to endow their
almshouses with an investment, in order to provide a small
income for the residents as well as money for the upkeep of the
building. Mary Tate duly invested 5000 consols (or consolidated
government bonds, with an interest rate of 3 percent), enabling
the trustees to fulfil Mary’s wish to provide an allowance of not
less than 3 shillings per week for each resident.123

How much was 3 shillings worth as a means of income for
an elderly almswoman? In late Georgian and early Victorian
times there was no such thing as pension income, but we can
use average wages from that time as a point of comparison.
According to Mrs Beeton in her Book of Household Management,
female servants’ wages in the 1860s ranged widely depending on
level of responsibility, but the average was around 8 shillings a
week (about 40p in today’s money) or £20 per year.124 In the early

Ground plan of almshouses showing what were the 12 original units, now combined to form 7 larger cottages,
each with a bedroom, living room, kitchen and bathroom. Image courtesy of Croydon Almshouse Charities.

years of the Victorian era an income of 3 shillings a week, or £8
per year, would have been even less than what a scullery maid at
the bottom of the servant scale might have earned.

The almswomen’s allowance was clearly very little to live on,
although, most importantly, it was supplemented by free coal
and rent-free accommodation. It was therefore important to the
trustees to know whether applicants to Mary Tate’s Almshouses
had any other sources of income to supplement their allowance,
and in many cases they did. On average, this ranged between 1
shilling and sixpence to 2 shillings and sixpence per week, and
for some the income came from their own savings. Ann Smith
and Elizabeth Carrett, for example, were fortunate enough to
have £125 and £50 in consols respectively, giving them 3 percent
interest. Ann Haydon stated in her application that she had
more than fifty shillings payment arising from funded property,
although she did not provide further details.

Mary Tate’s Almshouses, Mitcham, central gable with Tate coat of arms.

Photo by Phil Wilson.

For others, relatives undertook to supplement the allowance,
and in Martha Botten’s case it was her brother-in-law Thomas
Hall of Croydon who was to provide 1 shilling and sixpence for
her. Elizabeth Drewett, likewise, had a sister-in-law who would
provide 2 shillings, and a daughter offering 1 shilling. Betty Dale’s
relatives appear to have been very keen indeed to support her, with
her daughters offering up to 2 shillings a week, and her brother-
in-law William Dale of Ramsbottom writing most politely to the
trustees to offer an additional 1 shilling and sixpence.

Thus, the residents were able to scrape by and live a life of very
modest means. It was clearly not an easy life, but it was far better
than the lifestyle they might have had outside the walls of the
almshouses, and the residents had each other for support and
company in their own small community.

The fact that this small community still exists at Mary Tate’s
Almshouses today is testament to the success of the almshouse
model and of Mary’s vision. During Mary’s lifetime the
community grew and flourished, and in subsequent years
hundreds of candidates came and went, applied and were given
a place, moved out or passed away and were replaced, over
the nearly two centuries since its founding. Rules were set and
enforced, and criteria for entry scrutinised carefully, but it seems
that the trustees in those early years were not obsessively strict.
The almshouses became well known in Mitcham and were
avidly supported by the local population, in particular the ladies
of the gentry alongside the trustees. Led by Mrs Simpson and
Mrs Cranmer, the ladies of Mitcham took a keen interest in the
welfare of local tradeswomen and servants known to them, as
they discussed candidates and their merits with each other. The
waiting list for a place soon developed in those early years and
is still a common feature within the wider charity today, as the
appeal of almshouse living continues at Mitcham and elsewhere,
all around the country.

Mary Tate’s Almshouses, Mitcham. Front view from the A239,

facing the Cricket Green. Photo by Phil Wilson.

Mary Tate’s Almshouses, Mitcham. Front courtyard garden and
almshouses, each with a pale blue door and mullion windows.

Photo by Phil Wilson.

86 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Loughborough, with Burleigh Hall to the west and Thorpe Acre to the north west. Ordnance Survey
Six-inch Map of Leicestershire 1884, Sheet XVII NE. Reproduced with the permission of the National
Library of Scotland, https://maps.nls.uk/

Chapter 5

A Grand House on a Hill

On Saturday 19 May 1828, a travel diarist named William Fry,
who was passing through Loughborough on one of his journeys
around the country, went for a gentle afternoon stroll. ‘Before
dinner took a walk solus to Burleigh the seat of Miss Tate, and
had a very extensive view from her House, which is situated
on an elevated spot. Here you see Loughborough Church and
the whole of the town laying in a Valley, and a great extent of
Country all around. On the eminence I was serenaded with a
Grand Chorus of Birds, in which the Cuckoo joined, and the bass
part was sung by the Rooks.’ 125

The idyllic location of Burleigh Hall, situated at the top of a hill
with extensive views, was articulated by another visitor some
twenty years later: an American named John Henry Sherburne.

Engraving of Burleigh Hall in John Nichols’ History and Antiquities of
the County of Leicester, Volume III Part II. Photo by the author,

taken in the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland.

88 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Burleigh Hall: view from the entrance drive (above),

and the south front (below).

Images taken from the sale document for the Burleigh Estate dated
1918. L333, The Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester & Rutland.

Photos by the author.

‘Burleigh Hall is a mile from Garendon Park, situated in the centre
of an extensive park filled with herds of deer, and a beautiful place
it is.’ 126 Likewise, John Nichols, in his weighty and extensive 1804
History of the County of Leicester, could not neglect to mention
the lovely scenery and views from the hall: ‘An avenue of fine
old trees leads up to the house; and, together with a number of
others, nearly hide it. Near this house the new canal runs ten
miles across the Forest to Coleorton; and the neighbouring
country is beautiful indeed. An evening walk towards it from
Loughborough is delightfully pleasant. A number of views of
the town, with its large and rich tower, present themselves. The
Forest is of itself a grand and agreeable object; and furnishes a
noble background to all the prospects where it can be seen as
such.’ 127

It is unsurprising therefore that this prestigious and beautiful
estate, dating back at least to 1485, would appeal to a grand and
old family of the landed gentry class such as the Tates, and Nichols
recounts that they appeared on the scene in around 1711. The
estate passed through several generations of Tates before Mary’s
father George inherited it, and it then passed from George to
Mary in the form of a life interest with the estate held in trust for
her. George probably chose to do this because he bequeathed the
Langdown estate to Mary outright.

Nichols also includes a description of the house, from a sale
document dated 1656: ‘a fair capital mansion-house, newly built
of stone … [a] spacious court-yard, a large slated barn and brick
walls of eight bays and good stables with chambers over them,
washhouse, brew-house, and other necessary rooms thereto
belonging, a dove-cote, and one other dwelling-house distant
from the other, newly built of stone and one barn of two bays; all
cost building £2,600. The several nurseries, springs, a plantation
round the said house, are an ornament to it.’ 128

CHAPTER 5: A GRAND HOUSE ON A HILL

One of the last remnants of the Burleigh Hall estate: alcove in the
Walled Garden with Tate coat of arms and the motto ‘Thincke and
Thancke’ above. Now part of Loughborough University Campus.

Photo by the author.

A trip to the location of Burleigh Hall today offers the visitor
a totally different view and experience from the days of those
writers, and sadly the grand old hall and its peaceful parkland
surroundings no longer exist. The Leicestershire Record Office
holds a copy of a much later sale document for the Burleigh
Estate, dated 1918, containing some rather poignant photographs
of the somewhat dilapidated unoccupied building, following a
period of use by the Army in the First World War. The hall was
purchased and was occupied again until around the 1960s when
it was finally demolished. However, in 1909 a Technical Institute
was founded in Loughborough, and part of the Burleigh Estate
was purchased to found Loughborough College of Advanced
Technology, the country’s first technological university, now
renamed Loughborough University.

Although Mary would have been sad to think that her family’s
Loughborough home no longer exists today, she may have been
rather pleased to know that part of the old Burleigh Estate is now
the site of a world-leading research and teaching institution. A
few remnants of Burleigh Hall remain: a walled garden with the
Tate coat of arms and ‘Thincke and Thancke’ motto adorning
a central alcove; a summer house; a gardener’s cottage; and a
large and sprawling Cedar of Lebanon tree, which is thought
to be up to 300 years old and would have been very familiar to
Mary.

Loughborough’s great and good

While Langdown was Mary’s main home in her younger years,
and although she spent time at Grosvenor Place and Langdown
throughout her later life, it appears that Mary retired to
Burleigh.129 Certainly the archives seem to confirm this, with
references to Mary at Burleigh increasing significantly from
around 1835 (see Appendix 4 for a list of Mary’s servants living

Sketch plan of Burleigh Hall and Farm c.1955-60 as recalled by George
Leatherby in 1989, ©Loughborough University.

at Burleigh in 1841). As in London and in Hampshire, Mary
and her family had been established among the local gentry
in the area for many years, and she and her father were well-
known by the great and good of the town and surrounding
countryside. Their nearest neighbours representing the
landed gentry were William Herrick of Beaumanor Hall to the
southeast, and Charles March Phillips of Garendon Park to the
northwest, both of whom occupied rather grander mansions
than Burleigh. They were the other main landowners in the
area, and she was to involve both of them in the philanthropic
work she undertook.

Mary was well-connected beyond the immediate Burleigh estate
area as well, and the archives record her visit to the owners of an
even grander mansion – Belvoir Castle to the west of Grantham,
about 23 miles to the east of Loughborough. The faux historic
castle was owned by the politician Charles Stuart Wortley, and his
wife Lady Emmeline Stuart Wortley: poet, traveller and writer. It
was here in 1840 that a song composed by Lady Emmeline, and
set to music by Mary, was performed at the castle in honour of
Queen Victoria’s wedding. The poem gushes about Her Majesty
and contains many exuberant and elaborate adjectives, along
with a number of exclamation marks. The music must therefore
also have been dramatic, so much so that the event was reported
in The Planet, a London paper of the time.130

Why did Mary move to Loughborough in her later years?
Her decision to do so is likely to have been motivated mainly
from a wish to develop her philanthropic work further, in a
location where it was much needed, and it certainly seems
that Loughborough needed her more than the area around
the Solent near Southampton. Loughborough was the second
largest manufacturing town in Leicestershire after Leicester,
and the gazetteer William White (writing in 1846) said of it:

‘few towns experienced a more rapid increase during the first
thirty years of the present century.’131 Loughborough Parish,
which encompassed the town and the villages of Thorpe Acre
and Knight Thorpe, had a population in 1801 of 4,603, but by
1831 it had more than doubled to 10,969. The town was very
well situated for the growth of manufacturing industries, with
a navigable river and a canal to link it to other waterways. It
also had a mineral railway and a network of roads linking it to
Leicester, Nottingham, Derby and London. In the later years of
Mary’s life, a passenger railway was introduced, transforming
short- and long-distance travel. As the industrial revolution
developed, with the advent of all kinds of manufacturing
machinery and the growth of factories throughout the midlands,
Loughborough became a centre for the manufacture of products
such as hosiery, worsted, mohair, cotton and lace. In addition to
the numerous factories for the manufacture of fabrics, White’s
Gazetteer lists a wide range of other industries in the town in
the 1840s: establishments making machines for the factories, an
iron foundry, a bell foundry, dyeworks, malt kilns, corn mills and
wharfs for loading and unloading wares.132

Loughborough’s workers and paupers

Such was the sense of confidence in the manufacturing potential
in Loughborough in the early 19th century that entrepreneurs
arrived from surrounding areas to set up factories and develop
new machinery and manufacturing techniques. One of these was
John Heathcote, a frame maker who invented an automated lace
making machine called the bobbinet, or Loughborough Machine
as it was known locally because it first came into extensive use
there. After securing patents for his machine designs, Heathcote
went into business with John Boden, and they established their
factory in Market Street right in the centre of the town.

However, at the same time, national and international events in
the late 18th and early 19th centuries were having a destabilising
effect on the livelihoods of working people in England and
beyond, and in Loughborough the impact was significant and at
times dramatic. The French Revolutionary wars and Napoleonic
Wars afterwards (1792-1815) resulted in rising taxes, rapidly
rising food costs, trade restrictions and unemployment.133 The
advent of labour-saving machinery and large factories resulted
in reduced wages, and workers became increasingly desperate.
Some turned to violence, and in 1812 the Luddites first made
their presence felt in the town. The Luddites were members of
a movement of textile workers who saw automated machinery
as the cause of their poverty and hardship, so they broke into
factories and destroyed machinery in the midlands as well as
in Yorkshire and Lancashire. The most serious Luddite episode
in Loughborough took place on 28 June 1816, when a large
crowd of workers bearing arms marched from neighbouring
areas, entering the town just before midnight. They broke into
Heathcote and Boden’s factory, shot a watchman and dog on
the premises, cut and burnt the lace, smashed the windows and
destroyed all the machinery. The ringleaders were subsequently
brought to trial, and most were sentenced to death and executed.
Following the destruction of his machinery John Heathcote
decided he could no longer stay in Loughborough, and he
moved his business to Tiverton in Devon.134

Several years later, the stock market crash in 1825 and
subsequent bankruptcies in 1825-6 resulted in yet more
misery for Loughborough workers: there was a market slump
in manufacturing machinery, and a decline in Loughborough
manufacturing including lacemaking. Local unemployment
ensued, and White states that many families were driven out of
the town. The population decreased by about 800 people between
1831 and 1841.135

Loughborough’s industries were eventually revived by the arrival
of other branches of manufacturing, including the making of silk
velvet, satin, and elastic velvet cuffs and trimmings, but workers
still had challenges to contend with, including the effect of
rising food prices due to the advent of the Corn Laws and trade
restrictions between 1815 and 1846. In addition, the new Poor Law
Amendment Act of 1834 led to the establishment of the dreaded
workhouse system, which was introduced because of suspicions
on the part of the middle and upper classes that they had been
taxed to subsidise the poor to be lazy and avoid work. The new
workhouses generally had deliberately harsh regimes, where
families were split up and housed in different sections and made
to work long hours. The threat of the workhouse was ever-present
among working people struggling to make ends meet; so much so
that in 1837 troops were sent to Loughborough to quell a serious
riot which at least in part was due to hatred of the new law.136

Cotton factory in a Lancashire mill, with women making cotton thread,
engraving c. 1835, Everett Collection / Shutterstock.

In 1836 a working-class movement called Chartism emerged in
London and rapidly spread across the country. The aim of the
movement was to secure political rights and influence for the
working classes, and a People’s Charter was drawn up with six aims
including improvement of health and sanitation and political
rights. This could not come soon enough for Loughborough,
where rapid growth had resulted in overcrowding and a rise in
mortality rates due to poverty, malnourishment and disease, and
where one in five children died before the age of one.137

Desperation and donations

In July 1849, one year after the advent of the Public Health Act
of 1848 and the setting up of the new General Board of Health,
a newly appointed health inspector named William Lee visited
Loughborough and convened an inquiry. According to Alison
Mott, writing for the Loughborough History and Heritage
Network:

Lee noted the townsfolk had ‘a depressed,
cadaverous look – the lips […] almost white – the
veins blue’ and they appeared ‘prematurely aged.’
People complained of ‘pains in the head, stomach
and the left side, loss of appetite and strength,
nervous irritability, cold sweating, of frequent
fainting in all bad cases, and numerous instances
of almost continuous diarrhoea.’

As Mott describes, The Revd Henry Fearon, Rector of
Loughborough’s All Saints parish, spoke at the inquiry that ‘Many
of his parishioners spent all day sitting at their work, particularly
women and girls doing ‘finishing’ work for the stocking, shirt,
glove and cap making trades’. They worked indoors and should
have ‘a pure air to breathe’ when they opened their windows,

which ‘I cannot say they have generally.’ It wasn’t uncommon
for busy working families to keep young children quiet with
‘medicines’ containing laudanum (opium), to which they often
became addicted. Henry Fearon was sad to see ‘affectionate
mothers who would die to protect their offspring’ forced to
destroy them instead, for even if they survived infancy, they
would grow up ‘enfeebled and […] predisposed to disease.’ 138

This very depressing scene was of course not uncommon in
Victorian England, and during the period described here countless
philanthropic societies were set up around the country to offer
relief to the poor. Many of them were founded and managed by
women, especially in the latter part of the 19th century. Mary’s
contribution, however, lay elsewhere, and it appears her gift to
Loughborough began in the form of regular personal donations
to the people of the town. Thus, there are numerous reports in
the local papers describing her giving food and clothing to the
poor. For example, in the Leicester Chronicle in December 1842
there is a brief description of Mary offering Loughborough’s
residents money and beef for six weeks, which the paper notes
was her annual custom. 139 In February 1843, we therefore find
an offer of weekly beef to the poor, ‘regard being had to large
families, and those out of employment, not forgetting the widow,
aged and infirm.’ The writer adds: ‘such acts of charity are worthy
of imitation.’ 140

In March 1844, the same newspaper relates that ‘the distribution
of flannels and other articles of clothing to the poor of
Loughborough is going on rather extensively, under the kind
superintendence of Miss Tate, of Burleigh Hall.’ 141 And in
December of that year, we find that ‘Miss Tate with her wonted
liberality at this season of the year, has ordered a copper to be
erected in Bridge Street, Loughborough, to make soup for the
poor.’ 142

In January 1846, once again the pattern continues: ‘through the
liberality of Miss Tate, of Burleigh, upwards of 500 individuals
have been supplied by Mr Pickworth, draper, Loughborough,
with different articles of clothing suitable for the season. A great
number, also, have received a substantial piece of beef from
the shop of Mr Tyler, butcher, by order of the same benevolent
lady. Such kindness cheers the scene around many a desolate
hearth.’ 143

Finally in March 1848, the year before Mary’s death, the
paper recounts her donation of ‘360lb of beef for the poor for
last 7 weeks to upwards of 200 families, the unemployed and
industrious poor of Loughborough.’ 144

Churches, schools, and celebrity status

These regular gifts certainly did not go unnoticed. Between 1841
and 1847 we find several references in the Leicester and Nottingham
newspapers to Mary returning to Loughborough from her travels
and arriving back at Burleigh Hall in her carriage. Several reports
recount that on her arrival she was welcomed with a ‘merry peal
of the bells of All Saints’ Church,’ and on one occasion she was
serenaded by the Loughborough Band.145 Such was the impact of
her charitable giving that the Leicester Journal (Friday 28 June 1844
p2) expands on the usual ‘merry peal of the bells’ story to state
that ‘her arrival has no doubt been long anxiously wished by the
numerous recipients of her bounty, and whose absence for several
months longer than the usual period, has caused a depression in
our charitable institutions.’

As Loughborough’s population grew, Mary also wanted to provide
education to the young, so in 1835 she started looking for land
for a new infant school in the town. She found a suitable central
location in the yard of the Boot Inn near the town hall and built and

endowed the school soon after. She then rented buildings for two
further infant schools accommodating 180 boys and 100 girls.146
Following the founding of a boys’ school connected to Emmanuel
Church by the then Rector, the Revd. William Holme, which Mary
endowed, she built and endowed a girls’ school for Emmanuel
Parish. According to school records in the Leicestershire Archives,
she arranged for the dividends from the girls’ school’s endowment
to be paid directly to her, and the money went towards the salary
of the schoolmistress and the school expenses.147

In total Mary built and/or endowed three infant schools, a boy’s
school and a girl’s school, but at times she faced competition from
other philanthropic organisations outside the established church.
Writing to William Herrick of Beaumanor in September 1844,
she voiced her concerns about one of her infant schools where
‘no less than 60 infants have seceded and will probably go to the

Emmanuel Church, Loughborough. Photo by the author.

Dissenters.’ She expressed her determination to find a way to
manage the school so that this did not happen.148

Mary was also involved in providing for the vulnerable and sick,
in Loughborough as she had been elsewhere, and she was among
the donors to the local Public Dispensary hospital, established in
1819. The hospital accommodated 40 inpatients and supported
more than 1500 outpatients. In 1845 Mary is confirmed in the local
press as the ‘Lady Patroness’ of the annual ball for the benefit of
the Dispensary.149 She also set up a sort of Victorian vocational
training school, described as ‘an establishment in which young

The Benefactors of Thorpe Acre Church. Left to right: Revd Edward
Thomas March Phillips, Vicar of Hathern; Miss Mary Tate of Burleigh
Hall; Edward Dawson Esq of Whatton House.

Image taken from Loughborough in Black and White. Volume
2 Thorpe Acre (n.d., Reprint UK – www.reprintuk.com), by kind
permission of the author Dave Dover.

women were taught washing, enabling them to earn money to lift
them out of poverty.’ 150

As we have seen, Mary’s charitable donations and activities were
so numerous that she became the town’s local celebrity, but she
herself may have considered her greatest legacy in Loughborough
to be her instrumental role behind the scenes in the founding
of two new churches. As a devout adherent to Anglicanism, she
wished to see the expanding population in the area provided
with a place to worship, as well as somewhere to be educated
or cared for when sick. As Loughborough grew outwards in the
early years of the 19th century, a new church was needed in
addition to the medieval church of All Saints in the town centre.
The town’s parish was therefore divided into two, and the Rector,
together with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, set about having
a new church built. The new church, Loughborough Emmanuel,
was situated outside the town centre not far from the Burleigh
estate, and it was opened in 1837. Mary is described as one of
the church’s principal contributors with a gift of £500 (around
£46,000 in today’s money 151), and the new church was able to
accommodate over 1200 worshippers.152 A stained-glass window,
which sadly no longer exists, was later installed in the church in
her memory by her cousin and benefactress Louisa Pinfold.153

Saving the souls of Thorpe Acre

In the last few years of her life Mary became heavily involved in
plans to build and endow another new church, and a parsonage,
in the village of Thorpe Acre, located about 2 miles away from
the centre of Loughborough. In the early 1840s, before the new
church existed, the nearest place of worship for this small rural
hamlet was a chapel in the nearby village of Dishley. The chapel
was the property of Charles March Phillips of Garendon Park
(Mary’s neighbour from the gentry), and Anglican services

there were conducted by his brother, the Revd Edward Thomas
March Phillips, vicar of Hathern (another nearby village). But
concerns were raised, by the bishop and others, that Charles
March Phillips’ eldest son and future heir of Garendon,
Ambrose March Phillips, was not only a practising Catholic
but ‘full of zeal for the faith.’ 154 They were worried that the
whole population might become Catholic when he succeeded
to the estate. A circular appealing for funds for a new Anglican
church in Thorpe Acre was therefore issued by Revd Edward
Thomas March Phillips:

‘It is a matter of great importance that the Protestant
Inhabitants of Thorpe Acre (and there is but one
family not Protestant) should have a Church fixed
in the midst of themselves and under the patronage
of a Protestant Bishop, in which they may enjoy the
Ministry of the Church of England and be preserved
from the taint of Roman Catholic error.’ 155

The fundraising appeal succeeded, and the new church was built
in the early 1840s. According to Pamela Fisher in her blog on
Mary and Loughborough, Mary was named as a principal donor
although the archive sources do not state how much she gave.156

While the church was being built, further challenges needed to
be overcome, namely creating an endowment so that a suitable
income could be offered to a vicar, and building a parsonage so
he would have somewhere to live. A bundle of letters, written by
Mary to William Herrick between September 1844 and March
1846, held in the Leicestershire Record Office, reveals how all
of this was done.157 The letters contain an exceptionally rich
narrative of Mary’s deliberations on how to endow the church,
who might be the first vicar, and where he and his family could
live. Her letters to William Herrick begin with a discussion
about options for setting up the endowment, and Mary promptly

Letter written by Mary Tate to William Herrick, with original wax seal
attached, dated 15 March 1838.

DG9/2249, The Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester & Rutland.
Photo by the author.

decides to take the lead on this by selling some of her land to
raise the money. She then navigates issues around the legal right
to choose the incumbent (known as the advowson) and secures
the agreement of the bishop that, having taken on the task of
raising the money, she should be able to choose the priest during
her lifetime. She discusses several candidates for the priest
with Mr Herrick and communicates by letter or in person with
several members of the clergy known to her, to see who might
be available and interested in the role. It appears that her third
choice, the Revd John Bridges Ottley (whom she had known for
20 years from Dibden Church near Langdown), finally accepts
the job. She then decides to get the parsonage built herself, in
the absence of funds from elsewhere. She chooses a building
contractor for the parsonage and arranges for Revd Ottley to
select the location and layout of the house. She later supports
Revd Ottley to find a temporary home for himself and his family
until the house is built, and finally assists with arrangements for
his consecration at the church.

Thanks to Mary’s generosity, hard work and determination in
the face of numerous obstacles, the new church and parsonage
were successfully completed, and the church was consecrated in
September 1845. Her chosen vicar Revd Ottley went on to serve
as priest at Thorpe Acre for 33 years until his death in 1879.158

For the people of Thorpe Acre, Mary remained largely a figure
in the background, and that was exactly how she liked it, as she
made clear to Mr Herrick in her letter dated 30 November 1844:
‘I always wish to avoid publicity.’ 159 She did, however, express her
delight in seeing the work coming to fruition in June 1845, as
the date of the consecration of the church approached, and Revd
Ottley was soon to arrive to take up his new role as vicar: ‘I look
forward to this with the interest that really gives me pleasure
and satisfaction in every way.’ 160 The bishop was delighted too,

Above: Thorpe Acre Church designed by William Railton and
consecrated in 1845.

Below: Thorpe Acre Parsonage, designed by William Railton

on Mary’s instructions and paid for by her.

Both Image taken from Loughborough in Black and White. Volume
2 Thorpe Acre (n.d., Reprint UK – www.reprintuk.com), by kind
permission of the author Dave Dover.

and praised Mary’s work in Loughborough in a letter written
several years later:

Miss Tate has in addition to her other benefactions,
built an excellent house in which Mr Ottley and his
family now reside, to the very great advantage of
the place where there was no church at all before,
and these exertions, to use the expression in the
neighbourhood, have been the very ‘making of the
place’. 161

Mary lived to see the five schools and the two new churches she
built and endowed in use for several years before her death at
the age of 73 on 15 March 1849. The cause of death was recorded
as ‘ossification of arteries and paralysis, 3 or 4 months.’ 162 Her
obituary in the Leicester Journal stated that she had ‘retained the
vigour of her mind and body unimpaired’ until a few months
before her death. It described her work in Loughborough,
including the churches, the schools and her annual gifts to
the poor, and did not neglect to mention her almshouses in
Mitcham. It also declared that ‘the affability and kindness of her
manner enhanced the value of the substantial benefits which she
conferred and imparted an additional grace to her truly generous
character.’ 163

Mary’s will – and coverture

As Mary’s will reveals, she was a very rich woman at the time
of her death. She was an only child and heiress, so she was free
to pass on her property and money as she wished, and she had
clearly thought very carefully about how best to do good with
her worldly goods after her death. Thus, she bequeathed what
was then an enormous sum of £30,000 to each of her nieces and
nephew Mary Bridget Moore, Mary Jane Milner and Edmund

Fitzmoore, the children of her half-brother Richard Moore. She
arranged for the Langdown estate to be held in trust for another
niece and child of Richard Moore, Charlotte Selina Hobart.
Charlotte was also the recipient of Mary’s jewellery, and her
‘Indian cabinet’, a family heirloom at Langdown. The Burleigh
estate continued to be held in trust for Louisa and her sister
Arabella Pinfold under George Tate’s will, so the rest of that
estate at Burleigh went to Louisa Pinfold. Mary bequeathed her
clothes plus a year’s wages to her servants, and gave £500 each to
hospitals in Leicester, London, Loughborough, and Hampshire,
plus £200 to Revd Ottley at Thorpe Acre.164

What is perhaps most striking about Mary’s will, however, is the
length to which she goes to give her female beneficiaries control
over their inheritance by subverting the law of coverture. This
law had been in existence from medieval times and continued
until late in the 19th century. A helpful summary of its effect on
women is given by Stretton and Kesselring in their book on the
subject:

Upon marriage a wife lost the ability to own or
control property, enter into contracts [or] make a
will. A married woman’s real property – her lands
– fell under her husband’s control. During his
lifetime he could do with them what he wished. A
woman’s moveable property – her money, livestock
and personal possessions – became her husband’s
outright. He had total control over any cash she
brought to marriage or inherited or earned thereafter.
He could sell her possessions, including her clothes
and personal effects, or make bequests of them in his
will without her permission.165

The measures taken by Mary to avoid the effects of coverture on
her nieces and female beneficiaries were by no means unusual

Thorpe Acre Church today; the church has been enlarged on three sides
in recent times, and the photo shows the remaining original section.
Photo by the author.

in wills and legal arrangements at the time, particularly among
women of the gentry who could afford to pay for intricate legal
arrangements. But in the case of Mary’s will, the wording relating
to coverture is very detailed and lengthy, reflecting the complexity
of the watertight legal arrangements she wished to make. It
describes at great length that if the nieces to whom she bequeaths
money are under coverture at the time of her death, their legacy
is to be held in trust. If they die before their husbands, the legacy
continues to be held in trust for their children (or whoever they
choose if they have no children), but if their husbands die first
the legacy goes to the women outright. The will states that the
same applies to Charlotte, the other niece inheriting a life interest
in the Langdown estate and personal effects relating to it, and
likewise to any other female beneficiaries.

Mary later added a codicil to her will, in which she declared that,
as Charlotte Selina Hobart was now a widow, and therefore free
from coverture, the arrangements in the original will regarding
Langdown and its estates were revoked, and everything was
bequeathed to her outright.

As a single woman who had control over her life and property,
Mary clearly wanted to ensure that her female beneficiaries
and their children gained the maximum benefit from their
inheritance. Furthermore, while men like Revd Ottley were
remembered in her will with a relatively small bequest, it is
striking that Mary bequeathed almost all of her wealth to women,
to charitable institutions and to the poor. In life, she had worked
tirelessly to improve the lives of the poor, in particular women
and children. In death, her will was a strong and unequivocal
statement of these priorities.

110 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Conclusion

Faith, Feminism and Philanthropy

This book has attempted to shine a light on Mary’s life story
and on the locations associated with her, in order to understand
her place in late Georgian and early Victorian society. It has
also explored her interests and motivation to pursue the kinds
of philanthropic projects that became her hallmark. What the
sources have revealed is that, like some other women of her
time and gentry class, Mary was open-minded, cultured and
interested in the world, well-travelled and possessing musical
and artistic talents. She was also a charming hostess and a person
who was confident to socialise with the great and good among
the aristocracy and landed gentry.

However, what has become equally clear is that in many ways
Mary was not conventional. The fact that she did not marry was
significant and unusual, and she was fortunate in being an heiress
to a large fortune so felt no pressure to marry. She also pursued
her philanthropic projects with the kind of businesslike zeal
that was very unusual at the time. As we have seen in Chapter 5,
towards the end of her life she was building schools and churches,
liaising with architects and builders, negotiating with the local
bishop, and seeking advice from her wealthy neighbours as well
as high-ranking clerics, some of whom she visited in Oxford.
Her dedication was commented on in her obituary, which states:
‘instances of such well-directed generosity are not often met
with, although the age in which we live is not undistinguished
by charitable deeds.’ 166 She left a significant and lasting impact in
Loughborough, and while she tried to stay out of the limelight,
she could not avoid a certain element of celebrity there, with the
local people ringing a grateful ‘merry peal of the church bells’

111

to greet her when she arrived in town. The lengths to which she
went in her philanthropic work in Mitcham was also known and
commented on, for example in a letter to Mrs Simpson from her
friend Mrs Wharton, the writer expresses her concern for Mary
being unwell: ‘She has too much anxiety as well as too much
work!’ 167

Mary was also unusual in the type of work she undertook.
Philanthropy was a very common outlet for well-to-do Georgian
and Victorian women seeking life satisfaction and wishing to be
an influence for good. This was at least in part because women
could not hold public offices and formal positions in statutory
services until the advent of the 1919 Sex Disqualification
(Removal) Act, which enabled them to join professions, sit on
juries and be awarded degrees. So, women worked in informal
roles: joining societies, managing charities and community
groups, visiting the sick, attending bazaars and fundraising for
local and national charities. For many of them this work took
the form of ‘fashionable benevolence’, 168 but this was certainly
not Mary’s way of doing things. While other women had built
almshouses at various times during history, it is uncommon to
find a woman who had also been involved in building schools,
churches and parsonages, especially one who was so closely
involved in such projects. Mary would have found her status as
a single woman in possession of wealth and land and without
family obligations an advantage in this case. It appears she knew
this, hence her determination to embark on the kinds of ventures
that would have been more difficult for other women to achieve.

Mary’s devotion to her work was evidently rooted in her Christian
faith, which made her determined to do as much as she could,
even at times of poor health and right up to the end of her life.
She wanted to improve the lives of the poor, and like many at
the time thought this should involve both material and spiritual
benefits. The building of Thorpe Acre Church and its parsonage,

112 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

enabling the spread of Anglicanism in the face of competition
from Catholicism and dissenting worship, is a case in point. But
was her work all about saving souls? In an article in the Leicester
Chronicle in 1844 the writer questions Mary’s motivation for
her generosity towards the children of Loughborough: ‘this
benevolent lady … supplied each female child in her different
schools with a new frock and flannel petticoat, and … each
boy with two new shirts and a neckerchief’. The writer of the
article, while stating that ‘these praiseworthy deeds are worthy
of imitation’, goes on to suggest rather cynically that Mary’s gift
was motivated only by the expectation of seeing these children
attending church.169 As Frank Prochaska has argued, some
women in the early Victorian and late Georgian periods pursued
philanthropy only for religious or even status-seeking reasons.
But in Mary’s case, as with that of her contemporaries Sarah
Trimmer and Hannah More (no relation), the motivation seems
to have come also from a genuine compassion for the poor and
those in need.170

Mary lived during a time when women’s role in philanthropy was
on the rise, and it was also more generally a time of opportunity
and change for them. Women of Mary’s era were increasingly
involved in exploration, travel, writing, education and
learning,171 and some of Mary’s female friends were themselves
inspirational and radical figures: Anne Lister (traveller, estate
manager, businesswoman and lesbian diarist), Harriet Lewin
(later Mrs Grote, a writer), and Lady Emmeline Stuart Wortley
(a poet, writer and traveller), to name a few. Mary’s desire to
support women and secure their rights was very important to
her, and her almshouses for women in Mitcham are testament
to this. Mary understood the constraints under which women
lived, and worked around them, where necessary seeking advice
from men, but always forging her own path. As such she can
be regarded as an early feminist, building on the work done

CONCLUSION: FAITH, FEMINISM AND PHILANTHROPY

113

by Mary Wollstonecraft, the British writer, philosopher, and
advocate of women’s rights, whose book A Vindication of the
Rights of Woman (published in 1792) was one of the earliest
works of feminist philosophy. Many other independent-minded
women followed in Mary’s footsteps, among them Florence
Nightingale, Angela Burdett-Coutts and Johanna Chandler, all of
them worthy of biographies of their own.172 But Mary was among
the early examples of such women, and as such we can say that
she was in the vanguard of the feminist movement.

114 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

A memory of the Langdown estate: Tates Road, Dibden, Hampshire.

Photo by the author.

115
Appendices

1: Dibden Tithe Map and Apportionment 1842

2: 1841 Census – list of people living at 21 Grosvenor Place

3: 1841 Census – list of people living at Langdown House,
Hampshire

4: 1841 Census – list of people living at Burleigh Hall

116 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Appendix 1: Dibden Tithe Map and Apportionment 1842

Hampshire Record Office, 21M65/F7/601

Transcribed by the author

This record lists all the occupiers/tenants of the Langdown estate
in 1842. It gives us a sense of the different types of land on the
Langdown estate when Mary owned it, and how the land was used.
The reference numbers refer to areas on the accompanying tithe
map in the manuscript. Rent figures have not been transcribed.

Page 1

Landowners

Occupiers

Numbers
referring to
the plan

Name and
Description of
Lands and Premises

State of
Cultivation

Mary Tate

Herself

387

Lane Hayes Coppice

Wood

453

Plantation

Wood

454

Plantation

455

Shaws

Pasture

456

Long Down Park

Ditto

456a

Plantation in Ditto

Wood

457

Row in Ditto

Wood

458

Meadow

Pasture

459

Garden

460

House Yard &
Buildings

461

Part of Park

Pasture

462

Long Down House

462

Pleasure Ground
etc

464

Plantation

465

Stables in Yard

Page 2

Landowners

Occupiers

Numbers
referring to
the plan

Name and
Description of Lands
and Premises

State of
Cultivation

Mary Tate
(continued)

Herself
(continued)

466

Fir plantation

Pasture

468

Mousehole Field

Arable

APPENDICES

117

468

Lime Kiln Piece

Pasture

470

Stevens

Pasture

472

Roadway

487

Plantation

Wood

488

Roadway

489

Buckingham Field

Pasture

490

Field

Pasture

491

Roadway

495

Brick Close

Arable

496

Hepworth Field

498

Plantation

Wood

499

Furze in Holdings
Lawn

500

Holdings Meadow

Pasture

501

Holdings House
Lawn

502

Garden

503

Buildings and Yard

504

Holdings Lawn

Pasture

505

Fir Clump in Ditto

506

Fir plantation

Pasture

507

Longdown Field

Pasture

Page 3

Landowners

Occupiers

Numbers
referring to
the plan

Name and
Description of
Lands and Premises

State of
Cultivation

Mary Tate

Richard
Zillwood

338

Long Mead

Pasture

340

Meadow

Pasture

341

Hill Field

Pasture

342

Row in Ditto

Wood

343

Two acres

Pasture

344

The little Meadow

Pasture

370

Nash Ground

Arable

371

Water Lane Field

Arable

372

Row in Ditto

Wood

373

Barn Ground

Arable

374

The Six Acres

Arable

375

Forest Ground

Arable

376

Broomy Row

Wood

377

Kiln Close

Arable

378

Row in Ditto

Wood

379

Three Corner Piece

Arable

Page 4

Landowners

Occupiers

Numbers
referring to
the plan

Name and
Description of
Lands and Premises

State of
Cultivation

Mary Tate
(continued)

Richard
Zillwood
(continued)

380

Building and Yard

381

House and Garden

382

Home Ground

Arable

384

Strip

Arable

385

Tylers Field

Arable

385a

Row in Ditto

Wood

386

Row in Ditto

Wood

James
Martin

383

Cottage and Garden

William
Wyatt

249

South Hayes

Arable

250

Pinks Lane Head

Pasture

251

Pinks Head

Pasture

266

House, Yard and
Buildings

Joseph
Boyce

463

Cottage and Garden

Appendix 2: 1841 Census – list of people living at 21 Grosvenor
Place

Transcribed by the author.

Note: ages are approximate. It is interesting that none of the
servants listed were born in Middlesex. As mentioned in
Appendix 4, this may be because some of those listed had
accompanied Mary from her home in Burleigh in Leicestershire
or possibly her estate at Langdown in Hampshire.

Ind = independent means

Cl = Clerk

MS/FS = Male Servant/Female Servant

Name

Sex

Age

Profession /
employment /
independent
means

Whether
born in
same county
(Middlesex)

Whether
born in
Scotland,
Ireland or
Foreign
Parts

Mary Tate

Ind

Banks Wright

Sophy Wright

–

Sarah Edge

Elizabeth Clarke

Elizabeth
Anthony

Ann Bishop

Edward Russell

John Burk

Elizabeth Bishop

Thomas Curtiss

Appendix 3: 1841 Census – list of people living at Langdown
House, Hampshire

Transcribed by the author.

The list below is of people living in the cottages on the Langdown
estate in Dibden, at the time when Mary still owned the estate.
Note: ages are approximate. Mary’s name does not appear here
as she was not at Langdown on the day of the census. The head
of each household is in bold with family members underneath.

Do = Ditto

Cl = Clerk

MS/FS = Male Servant/Female Servant

Ag Lag = Agricultural Labourer

m = months

Name

Sex

Age

Profession /
employment /
independent
means

Whether
born in
same county
(Hampshire)

Whether
born in
Scotland,
Ireland or
Foreign
Parts

Hannah Butt

Sarah Wyatt

James Vaughn

Ag Lab

John Snelgrove

Gardener

Jane Do

Sarah Do

David Wyatt

Carpenter

Mary Do

William Boyce

Elizabeth Fursey

Henry Vaughn

Ag Lab

Charlotte Do

Mary Do

William Harding

Shepherd

Mary Harding

William Philips

Joiner

Mary Ann Phillips

Henry Phillips

William Nicholas

Brickmaker

Elizabeth Do

William Do

Jemima Do

Thomas Vaughn

Ag Lab

Richard Zillwood

Bailiff

Mary Do

Mary Ann Do

Elizabeth Bailey

James Martin

Ag Lab

Sarah Do

Mary Do

James Do

Patience Do

Ind

Richard Padwick

122 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

Appendix 4: 1841 Census – list of people living at Burleigh
Hall

Transcribed by the author. This list is relatively short, probably
due to the fact that Mary was not at Burleigh at the time of the
census (she was at Grosvenor Place in London). It is likely that
some of her servants had travelled with her, and are therefore
listed on the London census.

Note: ages are approximate.

Do = ditto

FS = Female Servant

Name

Sex

Age

Profession /
employment /
independent
means

Whether born
in same county
(Leicestershire)

Whether
born in
Scotland,
Ireland or
Foreign Parts

Ann Morris

Mary do

Henry Harris

William Collis

Gardener

Thomas Collis

References and notes

Introduction: Finding Mary Tate – and her Almswomen

1 I have used the term ‘almshouses’ rather than ‘cottages’
throughout the book. Although Mary’s building bears a
sign describing the dwellings as cottages, Mary Tate’s (or
Miss Tate’s) Almshouses was the term used by Mary and
her contemporaries.

2 E N Montague, Mitcham Histories 1: The Cricket Green
(London: Merton Historical Society: 2001), p41.

Chapter 1: A Gentleman’s Daughter

3 Westminster Baptisms, 1776: City of Westminster
Archives Centre, STG/1324/1/4 p224.

4 John Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the
Landed Gentry, or Commoners of Great Britain & Ireland,
Volume 2 (London: Henry Colburn: 1838), p488.

5 Members of the Croydon Almshouse Charities community
have asked from time to time whether Mary and her
family had connections with slavery. The answer is almost
certainly no: none of the Tates of Burleigh Hall appear in
lists of slave owners, and they were members of the landed
gentry, so would have no need to be involved. They are
also not related to the Tates of the sugar corporation Tate
& Lyle. The company was founded by Henry Tate, First
Baronet, who was born in Chorley, Lancashire, and who
also founded the Tate Gallery. His father was William Tate,
a Unitarian clergyman, born in Newcastle. Mary’s family
originated from the Coventry area in medieval times,
where they were landowners.

(For further information see the University College London, Centre for
the Study of the Legacies of British Slavery database https://www.ucl.
ac.uk/lbs/project/details/. For details on the origins of Tate & Lyle, see
http://www.chorleyhistorysociety.co.uk/nwsvws18/nwsvws1810.htm and
https://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/history-tate/tate-galleries-and-slavery )

123

6 Obituary of George Tate, in Sylvanus Urban, The
Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, from
January to June, 1822, Volume XCII (London: John
Nichols and Son), p567.

7 St Peter’s Church Chertsey Baptism Records, 1743: Surrey
History Centre, CHY/4.

8 Will of Bridget Tate (Moore). Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, 1784: The National Archives, PROB
11/1114/36.

9 ‘Sayes Court, Surrey’ – http://chertseymuseum-
interactive.org.gridhosted.co.uk/places/sayes-court/
[accessed 5 December 2020].

10 Alfred Ridley Bax, Allegations for Marriage Licences,
Issued by the Commissary Court of Surrey Between 1673
and 1770, Part 2 (Norwich: Goose & Son: 1907) p428.

11 John Milton, The Works of John Milton in Verse and Prose,
Printed from the Original Editions with a Life of the Author
by The Rev. John Mitford, Volume 1 (London: William
Pickering: 1851) page ix.

12 Joseph Jackson Howard (Ed), Miscellanea Genealogica
et Heraldica and the British Archivist Vol 1 (London:
Hamilton Adams and Co: 1868) p312-313.

13 Byfleet St Mary Parish Records, 1765: Surrey History
Centre, BY/1/1 (baptism).

14 Byfleet St Mary Parish Records, 1808: Surrey History
Centre, BY/1/3 (burial).

15 Byfleet St Mary Parish Records, 1767: Surrey History
Centre, BY/1/1 (baptism).

16 Byfleet St Mary Parish Records, 1839: Surrey History
Centre, BY/5/1 (burial).

17 Byfleet St Mary Parish Records: 1768: Surrey History
Centre, BY/1/3 (burial).

18 Byfleet St Mary Parish Records: 1763 and 1770: Surrey
History Centre, BY/1/1 (baptism) and BY/1/3 (burial).

124 MISS TATE AND HER ALMSHOUSES

19 St George Hanover Square, marriage licence 1775, City of
Westminster Archives STG/2256.

20 Will of Bridget Tate (Moore). Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, 1784: The National Archives, PROB
11/1114/36.

21 Marriage Settlement by Lease and Release of land in
Surrey, 1775: Hampshire Record Office, 63M48/584-585.

22 Ibid.

23 J C Smith, Anecdotes of George Frederick Handel, and John
Christopher Smith, (London: Bulmer & Co: 1799), p4; and
T H Lewin (ed), The Lewin Letters, A Selection from the
Correspondence and Diaries of an English Family, Volume
II, (London: Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd: 1909),
p139-140.

24 Obituary of George Tate, in Sylvanus Urban, The
Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, from
January to June, 1822, Volume XCII (London: John
Nichols and Son), p567.

25 T H Lewin (Ed), The Lewin Letters, A Selection from the
Correspondence and Diaries of an English Family, Volume
II, (London: Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd: 1909),
p139-140.

26 F K Prochaska, Women and Philanthropy in 19th century
England, (Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1980), p3-4.

27 Letter from George Tate to Earl of Malmesbury, 1798:
Hampshire Record Office, 9M73/193/13. See also
reference no. 44.

28 Letter from George Tate to Earl of Malmesbury, undated:
Hampshire Record Office, 9M73/193/16.

29 Byfleet St Mary Parish Records, 1783: Surrey History
Centre, BY/1/3. Interestingly, the burial record states:
‘The Penalty for not burying in woollen was paid to the
Minister and Churchwardens for the Poor of this Parish.’

REFERENCES AND NOTES

125

The Burying in Woollen Acts of 1666-80 required people
to be buried in woollen shrouds (unless they were plague
victims) as a means of protecting the British wool trade,
which was at the time under threat from foreign imports.
The Act was unpopular, as many people wished to bury
their relatives in something finer, and it seems the Tates
were of this view and therefore prepared to pay the fine
(which in any case went to what they would have thought
was a good cause), to spare Bridget this indignity.

30 Will of Bridget Tate (Moore). Prerogative Court of
Canterbury, 1784: The National Archives, PROB
11/1114/36.

31 Ibid, author’s transcription.

32 Ibid, author’s transcription: ‘Martha Tate of parish of St
George Hanover Square spinster, and David James of
Serjeants Inn Fleet Street made oath that they know and
were well acquainted with Bridget Tate late of Byfleet in
the county of Surrey for several years before and to the
time of her death which happened in the month of April
last and during this their knowledge of and acquaintance
with the said deceased have often seen her write and
subscribe her name to writings, and were and are thereby
well acquainted with her manner and character of
handwriting and subscription, and having now carefully
viewed and perused the parchment writing hereunto
annexed purporting to be a codicil to the last will and
testament of the said deceased … these deponents do
jointly and severally depose that the whole body, lines
and contents of the said parchment writing, beginning
ending and subscribed as aforesaid, to be all of the proper
handwriting and subscription of the said deceased. Signed
Martha Tate; D James.’

33 Attested copy of bargain and sale of lands in Hampshire
and other counties, 1790: Hampshire Record Office,
23M70/E20.

34 Conveyance to make a tenant to precipe with regards to
a messuage, cottages, barns etc and 40 acres, Ellisfield,
1791: Hampshire Record Office, 23M70/T16.

35 It is worth noting that the term ‘Esquire’ was given to
members of the landed gentry whose rank was above that
of ‘Gentleman’ and below that of ‘Knight’ in the hierarchy
of the time. The title Esquire, also accorded to George
Tate, Blunden Moore and William’s brother, was normally
either inherited or given to those who had held positions
of responsibility in military and/or public life.

36 Probate Lawsuit Moore v Hurne, concerning the
deceased William Moore esq of Heston, Middlesex, but
late of Bracknell, Berkshire, Allegation, 4 May 1808. The
National Archives, PROB 18/115/14.

37 Will of William Moore, Prerogative Court of Canterbury,
proved 30 December 1808: The National Archives, PROB-
11/1490/228.

38 Middlesex Marriage Registers, Volume 8, England:
Phillimore Marriage Registers, 1531-1913, p87.

39 List of books written by Richard Moore. Available at:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=inauthor:%22Richard+Moore+(of+Hampton+Court.)%22&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdivTjlYDuAhUHohQKHYCIB0kQmxMoADAGegQIDxAC&sxsrf=ALeKk00H3zd1sEVHvgIAKauFXqfb8t4JkA:1609690869862
[accessed 31 January 2021].

40 Ernest Law, The History of Hampton Court Palace,
(London: George Bell & Sons.:1891), p474.

41 ’27 Halsey Street, Royal Borough of Kensington &
Chelsea: A Heritage Appraisal of the Listed Building
and the Possible Impact of the Proposed Works,’ 2019.
Available at: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/
doc/Other-2199840.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=2199840&location=Volume2&contentType=application/
pdf&pageCount=1 [accessed 31 January 2021].

42 Letter from George Tate to Earl of Malmesbury, 1803:
Hampshire Record Office, 9M73/193/17.

Chapter 2: A Home by the Sea

43 Clare and Fred Murley, Waterside, A Pictorial Past
(Southampton: Ensign Publications: 1992) p79.

44 A letter held in the Hampshire Archives, dated 1798
and written in London, provides a clue to George’s
transition to Hampshire. The letter is addressed to the
Earl of Malmesbury, and in it George thanks him for a
contribution to funds for volunteers in the Dibden and
Fawley districts of Hampshire. It is possible that the
volunteers in question were to become part of a militia,
along with many others from the south of England, as
the country was preparing to respond to the threat of an
invasion from Napoleon’s armies. Or it may be that the
volunteers were involved in the distribution of charitable
relief for the poor in the area, under the Georgian Poor
Law system. Further letters written in subsequent years
mention George’s role in the area as ‘Superintendent of
the Bounty to the Poor.’ The letters indicate that George
Tate was involved in local affairs in the Dibden area from
before the turn of the century. Hampshire Record Office,
9M73/193/13 and 16.

45 It appears from evidence in maps of the time, and from
documents in the Hampshire Archives, that George’s
‘Langdown’ house overlooking Southampton Water
(shown in the paintings in this chapter) may have been
built some years after George and his daughter arrived in
Hampshire. They probably lived in the older ‘Langdown
House,’ situated further away from the water, which
seems to have been named ‘Langdown Lodge’ at a later
date. In a letter written by George to Thomas Lewin,
written in 1819, George mentions ‘business at Langdown
to make it comfortable’, and writes ‘as soon as my house

is furnished I will let you know in hopes of seeing you
and as many of your family as you can bring me.’ See
note 53 for the Lewin Letters reference, and https://www.
oldhampshiremapped.org.uk for the maps.

46 Watercolour paintings of Langdown House and
grounds, by Louise Hobart, c.1862. Available at:
https://collections.hampshireculture.org.uk/collections-
search?keywords=Langdown [accessed on 28 February 2024].

47 Broadlands family and estate papers, University of
Southampton Archives, MS62/BR/21/7/4.

48 Ibid, MS62/BR/101/79.

49 London Courier and Evening Gazette, Wednesday 1
February 1804, p3. Perhaps it is not fanciful to imagine
that this was the inspiration for the drama scene in Jane
Austen’s Mansfield Park.

50 In one example, the paper relates that George and Mary
Tate have arrived in London and are staying at St James’s
Hotel. Morning Post, Saturday 11 November 1815, p3.

51 Tim Stretton and Krista Kesselring (Eds), Married Women
and the Law: Coverture in England and the Common Law
World (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press: 2013)
p3-19.

52 See Chapter 5 for a more in-depth exploration of
coverture and the choices Mary made to take control of
her life and her wealth.

53 T H Lewin (Ed), The Lewin Letters, A Selection from the
Correspondence and Diaries of an English Family, Volume I,
(London: Archibald Constable & Co. Ltd: 1909), p182-3.

54 Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster (Eds), The
Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen (Second Edition,
Cambridge University Press: 2014) p178.

55 Obituary of George Tate, in Sylvanus Urban, The
Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, from
January to June, 1822, Volume XCII (London: John
Nichols and Son), p567.

56 Ibid.

57 Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster (Eds), The
Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen (Second Edition,
Cambridge University Press: 2014) p145.

58 Will of George Tate of Langdown, Hampshire, 1822:
The National Archives, PROB 11/1658/44, author’s
transcription.

59 Hampshire Chronicle, Monday 25 November 1822, p4.

60 Letter from Anne Sturgess-Bourne to Marianne Dyson,
from Testwood, Hampshire, undated, Hampshire
Archives, 9M55/F11/25, author’s transcription.

61 Letter from Anne Sturgess-Bourne to Marianne Dyson,
from Testwood, Hampshire, 1841, Hampshire Archives,
9M55/F25/1, author’s transcription.

62 Letter from Anne Sturgess-Bourne to Marianne Dyson,
from Testwood, Hampshire, undated, Hampshire
Archives, 9M55/F31/25, author’s transcription.

63 Letter from Mary Tate to Georgiana Dorothy Howard,
Countess of Carlisle, undated, Hampshire Archives,
75M91/M1/9. Author’s transcription with writer’s
underlining. Georgiana Howard (née Cavendish, 12 July
1783 – 8 August 1858), was the wife of George Howard,
6th Earl of Carlisle.

64 Tithe Map and Apportionment, 1842: Hampshire
Archives, 21M65/F7/601, 602 (see Appendix 1).

65 Michael Cowan (Ed), The letters of John Peniston, 1823-
1830 (Wiltshire Record Society: Trowbridge: 1996) p60.

66 Sian Rees, Sweet Water and Bitter: The Ships that Stopped
the Slave Trade (London: Chatto & Windus: 2009) p63.

67 Ibid, p104.

68 Will of Mary Tate. Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1849:
TNA PROB 11/2093/351.

69 ‘Grand Celebration at Cadland House,’ Hampshire
Advertiser, 1 August 1840 p2.

70 ‘A Grand Ball and Supper,’ Hampshire Advertiser, 2
December 1843, p2.

71 ‘Hampshire Horticultural Society,’ Hampshire Advertiser,
19 August 1837 p3.

72 ‘Rejoicing at Fawley,’ Hampshire Independent, 4 August
1838, p2.

73 Ibid.

74 ‘Hythe Hard,’ Southampton Herald, 27 December 1824.
p1.

75 Salisbury and Winchester Journal, 4 May 1835 p2.

76 Hampshire Chronicle, 7 April 1849 p1.

Chapter 3: The London Socialite

77 Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (London: Military
Library Whitehall: 1813) Chapter 49.

78 Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster (Eds), The
Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen (Second Edition,
Cambridge University Press: 2014) p130.

79 Amanda Vickery, The Gentleman’s Daughter (London:
Yale University Press: 1998) p264.

80 1841 census for Grosvenor Place, London.

81 John Nichols, History and Antiquities of the County of
Leicester Volume 3 Part 2 (London: Nichols and Son:
1804) p472.

82 Letter from George Tate to Sir Edmund Hartopp, March
1800: Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Record
Office, 10D72/623. The letter relates to farming rights in
Loughborough.

83 ‘Countess Woronzow’s Ball and Supper’, British Press, 23
April 1803, p2. [This is the usual transcription of Russian
names at the time.]

84 Note that there were two Lady Stuarts in Anne’s and
Mary’s acquaintance. The first and most frequently
mentioned in the extracts included here is likely to be
the older Lady Stuart: Anne Louisa Bertie, Lady Stuart
of Richmond Park (1747-1841). Her daughter-in-law is
the younger Lady Stuart de Rothesay who is mentioned
in Chapter 2. It is not always clear from Anne’s journals
which is which.

85 Diaries of Anne Lister, West Yorkshire Archive Service,
Calderdale, SH:7/ML/E/16/0077, p145. Transcription by
Adeline Lim, reproduced with her kind permission. Note
Anne’s convention regarding times of the day: 1 ½ is 1.30
and 7 5/ is 7.05.

86 Ibid, SH:7/ML/E/16/0077, p147.

87 Ibid, SH:7/ML/E/16/0080, p150-151. A phaeton was a
light and speedy four-wheeled carriage which was driven
by the occupant, and which usually contained one or two
seats and a folding top.

88 Ibid, SH:7/ML/E/16/0132, p255.

89 Letter from Mary Tate to Anne Lister, November 16,
1834: West Yorkshire Archive Service, Calderdale, SH:7/
ML/813. The letter was received by Anne on 13 January
1835.

90 There was, however, a family precedent in that Ann
and Elizabeth Tate, daughters of George’s brother the
Reverend Benjamin, both died unmarried. See E N
Montague, Mitcham Histories 1: The Cricket Green
(London: Merton Historical Society, 2001) p46.

91 Jill Liddington, Female Fortune: Land, Gender and
Authority, (London: Rivers Oram Press: 1998) p16-17.

92 ‘The Mystery of Gentleman Jack’s tombstone’ by David C
Glover, https://northernlifemagazine.co.uk/the-mystery-
of-gentleman-jacks-tombstone/ [accessed 20 July 2024].

93 Amanda Vickery, The Gentleman’s Daughter, (London:
Yale University Press: 1998) p134-5.

94 Ibid, p135.

95 John Henry Sherburne, The Tourist’s Guide, or Pencillings
in England and on the Continent, (Philadelphia: G B
Zieber & Co: 1847) p49.

96 Will of Mary Tate. Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1849:
TNA PROB 11/2093/351.

97 The Champion, Sunday 19 January 1840, p7. The article
goes on to state proudly that the provenance of Mary’s
painting goes back to the aristocratic Duc de Choiseul-
Praslin, a French nobleman and politician, and that it
depicts a gentleman called ‘Mr F Chatres [sic].’ However,
according to the authors of Van Dyck, The Complete
Paintings, the painting which now hangs in the National
Gallery, and which they confirm once belonged to Mary,
probably passed not through the home of the Duc de
Choiseul-Praslin but instead through those of the Marquis
de Maisons and Thomas Bowes, 9th Earl of Strathmore,
before making its way to 21 Grosvenor Place. The copy
owned by the Duc de Choiseul-Praslin is probably the
other copy of the two painted by Van Dyck, and the name
‘Chatres’ refers to Langlois’ nickname as he was born in
Chartres in France. The author corresponded in 2023 with
Dr Nina Cahill, Research Assistant, Flemish Catalogue, at
The National Gallery, who is working on a new catalogue
of Van Dyck. New information has come to light since the
previous catalogue was published, and she has confirmed
that the National Gallery copy is the copy once owned by
Mary. For further information, see: Susan J. Barnes, Nora
De Poorter, Oliver Millar and Horst Vey: Van Dyck – The
Complete Paintings: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings,
(Illustrated edition, Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in
British Art: Yale University Press: 2004) p547-549.

98 F K Prochaska, Women and Philanthropy in 19th century
England, (Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1980), p3-4.

99 ‘The Approaching Fete at Greenwich Hospital’, English
Chronicle and Whitehall Evening Post, Tuesday 30 May
1843, p5.

100 London Courier and Evening Gazette, Friday 15 January
1813 p2.

Chapter 4: An Almshouse in Mitcham

101 E N Montague, Mitcham Histories 1: The Cricket Green,
(London: Merton Historical Society: 2001), p9.

102 Ibid, p42-43.

103 Ibid, p49.

104 Mary Tate’s Almshouses’ Trust Deed, (Croydon
Almshouse Charities: 1829).

105 Later Georgian Mitcham, [accessed 21 October 2022].

106 Peter Higginbotham, Workhouses of London and the
South East, (Stroud: The History Press: 2019), p221.

107 Letter to Revd Jones, Beddington, from M Beckford,
undated. Merton Heritage Centre, 13.5/9, author’s
transcription.

108 Mary Tate’s Almshouses appeal leaflet, Family Welfare
Association, Surrey History Centre, 8018/Box 6.

109 Letter from Mary Tate to Mrs Simpson, 8 June 1829,
Tunbridge Wells. Merton Heritage Centre, 36a 1/36,
author’s transcription.

110 Mary Tate’s Almshouses: Register of Applicants, 1833-
1943, The London Archives, A/FWA/C/J/19/001.

111 Mary Tate’s Almshouses’ Trust Deed, (Croydon
Almshouse Charities, 1829).

112 Mary Tate’s Almshouses: Register of Applicants,
1833-1943, The London Archives, A/FWA/C/J/19/001,
applicant 11.

Note that the entries in the register have been cross-checked
with the ten-yearly census entries for the almshouses,
dating from 1841 to 1871; this has provided further
clarification on who did get a place at the almshouses.

113 Kelly’s Surrey Directory, 1867, Surrey History Centre,
p1591-2.

114 Stephen Turner (Ed), Parishioners of Mitcham, 1837/38,
The Revd Herbert Randolph’s Notebook. (London: Merton
Historical Society, Local History Notes 20), p26.

115 E N Montague, Mitcham Histories 1: The Cricket Green,
(London: Merton Historical Society: 2001), p51.

116 Ibid, p51.

117 Nigel Goose, Helen Caffrey and Ann Langley (Eds),
The British Almshouse: new perspectives on philanthropy
ca 1400-1914 (Hook: Family & Community Historical
Research Society Ltd: 2016), p281.

118 Mary Tate’s Almshouses’ Trust Deed, (Croydon
Almshouse Charities, 1829).

119 Ibid.

120 Stephen Turner (Ed), Parishioners of Mitcham, 1837/38,
The Revd Herbert Randolph’s Notebook. (London: Merton
Historical Society, Local History Notes 20) p3.

121 Letter from Mary Wharton to Mrs Simpson, undated,
Merton Heritage Centre, 23 6/14 and 15, author’s
transcription.

122 Letter from Frederick Lindsay Cole to Mrs Simpson,
12 September 1838: Merton Heritage Centre, 14 13/4,
author’s transcription.

123 Mary Tate’s Almshouses’ Trust Deed, (Croydon
Almshouse Charities, 1829).

124 Isabella Beeton, The Book of Household Management
(London: Jonathan Cape Ltd: 1861) p8 (available on
Google Books).

Chapter 5: A Grand House on a Hill

125 William Fry, ‘Excursions’, (unpublished manuscript,
1828), University of Loughborough, MS 149, p74-75.

126 John Henry Sherburne, The Tourist’s Guide, or Pencillings
in England and on the Continent, (Philadelphia: GB
Zieber & Co: 1847), p49.

127 John Nichols, The History and Antiquities of the County of
Leicester, Volume III Part II, (London: John Nichols and
Son: 1804), p471-472.

128 Ibid, p471.

129 E N Montague suggests this, and I think he is probably
right. E N Montague, Mitcham Histories 1: The Cricket
Green (London: Merton Historical Society: 2001), p50.

130 The Planet, Sunday 16 February 1840, p4.

131 William White, History, Gazetteer and Directory of
Leicestershire, (Sheffield: Robert Leader: 1846), p272.

132 Ibid.

133 https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/the-
impact-of-the-napoleonic-wars-in-britain [accessed 20
October 2023].

134 Rev W G Dimock Fletcher, Chapters in the History
of Loughborough (Loughborough Herald and North
Leicestershire Gazette Office: 1883), p4-5.

135 William White, History, Gazetteer and Directory of
Leicestershire, (Sheffield: Robert Leader: 1846), p273.

136 W. G. Hoskins, assisted by R. A. McKinley, The
Victoria History of the Counties of England: A History of
Leicestershire, Volume Two (Oxford: Archibald Constable
and Oxford University: 1907, revised 1954) p126.

137 https://www.lboro-history-heritage.org.uk/
loughboroughs-health-in-1848-part-1/ [accessed 20
October 2023].

138 https://www.lboro-history-heritage.org.uk/loughboroughs-
health-in-1848-part-2/ [accessed 20 October 2023].

139 Leicester Chronicle, Saturday 31 December 1842, p3.

140 Leicester Chronicle, Saturday 25 February 1843 p2.

141 Leicester Chronicle, Saturday 9 March 1844 p3.

142 Leicester Chronicle, Saturday 21 December 1844 p2.

143 Leicester Chronicle, Saturday 10 January 1846 p4.

144 Nottingham Review and General Advertiser for the
Midland Counties, Friday 17 March 1848 p5.

145 Leicestershire Mercury, Saturday 29 July 1848, p3; and
Nottingham Review and General Advertiser for the
Midland Counties, Friday 15 January 1841, p5, and Friday
13 August 1847 p3.

146 Leicester Chronicle, Saturday 5 March 1836 p3, and Fisher,
Pamela J (2023), ‘Mary Tate.’ Available from: https://
lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2023/08/mary-
tate.html [Accessed 22 October 2023].

147 Accounts of Tate’s School Charity in Loughborough,
1854: The Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and
Rutland, 12D43/2/40.

148 Letter from Mary Tate to William Herrick of Beaumanor,
4 September 1844: The Record Office for Leicestershire,
Leicester and Rutland, DG9/2556/37.

149 Nottingham Journal, Friday 20 December 1844 p1.

150 Fisher, Pamela J (2023), ‘Mary Tate.’ Available from:
https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2023/08/
mary-tate.html [Accessed 22 October 2023].

151 Calculation carried out on Bank of England website:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/
inflation/inflation-calculator [accessed 31 December
2023].

152 Samuel Lewis (Ed), ‘Longwood – Loughborough’, in A
Topographical Dictionary of England (London: S Lewis
& Co: 1848) p175-179. Available from British History
Online: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-
dict/england/pp175-179 [accessed 22 October 2023].

153 Coventry Standard, Friday 30 January 1852, p3.

154 Circular in the form of a 3-page printed letter, signed by
ETM Phillipps, Rector of Hathern and officiating minister
of Dishley Chapel, 1843, Lambeth Palace Library, ICBS
3319, p3.

155 Ibid.

156 Leicester Chronicle, Saturday 5 March 1836 p3, and Fisher,
Pamela J (2023) ‘Mary Tate.’ Available from: https://
lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2023/08/mary-
tate.html [accessed 22 October 2023].

157 Letters written by Mary Tate to William Herrick of
Beaumanor, from The Herrick Manuscripts, The
Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland,
DG9/2556/1-20 and 21-39.

158 Transcription of grave of Revd J B Ottley: https://www.
findagrave.com/memorial/221483371/john-bridges-
ottley, [accessed 1 January 2024].

159 Letter from Mary Tate to William Herrick of Beaumanor,
30 November 1844, from The Herrick Manuscripts, The
Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland,
DG9/2556/3.

160 Letter from Mary Tate to William Herrick of Beaumanor,
18 June 1845, from The Herrick Manuscripts, The
Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland,
DG9/2556/33.

161 Letter from Bishop of Peterborough to unknown
recipient, 23 July 1848, Lambeth Palace Library, London,
ECE/7/1/6676/1.

162 Death certificate of Mary Tate, 1849, Qtr M, Volume 15,
p129, General Register Office.

163 Mary Tate obituary – Leicester Journal, Friday 23 March
1849.

164 Will of Mary Tate, Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1849:
TNA PROB 11/2093/351.

165 Tim Stretton and Krista J Kesselring (Ed), Married
Women and the Law: Coverture in England and the
Common Law World (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press: 2013), p7-8.

Conclusion

166 Mary Tate obituary – Leicester Journal, Friday 23 March
1849.

167 Letter from Mary Wharton to Mrs Simpson, undated,
Merton Heritage Centre, 23 6/14 and 15, author’s
transcription.

168 Amanda Vickery, The Gentleman’s Daughter (London:
Yale University Press: 1998) p288.

169 Leicester Chronicle, Saturday 21 December 1844, p2.

170 F K Prochaska, Women and Philanthropy in 19th century
England, (Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1980), p40-41. Sarah
Trimmer (1741-1810) was an educational reformer and
philanthropist; her daughter Charlotte married Mary’s
half-brother Richard Moore. Hannah More (1745-7
September 1833) was a religious writer, philanthropist,
poet, and playwright.

171 Gillian Russell, ‘Sociability,’ in The Cambridge Companion
to Jane Austen (Second Edition: Cambridge University
Press: 2014) p178.

172 Florence Nightingale (1820-1910) was a social reformer
and writer and is regarded as the founder of modern
nursing. Angela Burdett-Coutts (1814-1906) was a very
wealthy aristocratic heiress who founded an asylum
for girls and women, along with schools and churches;
in some ways she was very similar to Mary. Johanna
Chandler (1820-1875) was an orphan who founded a
charity and a home for the paralysed in London, which
later became the National Hospital for Neurology and
Neurosurgery.