Lodene, Shoot up Hill
‘Lodene’ stood on the corner of Shoot
up Hill and Walm Lane, a large detached house which was later renumbered as 77
Shoot Up Hill. The first occupant was Daniel Jay who moved there after his
marriage to Carlotta Jacobs in 1889. On the 1891 census he described himself as
a bill broker and in 1901 as a financier, but in reality, he was a money lender.
We couldn’t trace his birth until we saw someone who was researching the family history of Carlotta Jacobs.
She suggested that Daniel Jay may have been Daniel Jacobs, which was indeed the
case; we discovered he was born in Gloucester in 1859, the son of Henry ‘Harry’ Jacobs. Daniel had
changed his name to Jay before he married Carlotta Jacobs (no relation) in the
West London Synagogue.
Daniel Jay in court in 1898 |
‘The Little Dustpan’
For many years his father Harry
Jacobs ran a shop at 35 and 36 Westgate Street in the centre of Gloucester called oddly ‘The Little Dustpan’. Apparently he used the
name because the house furnishings he sold there were ‘dirt cheap’.
Harry Jacobs’ name cropped up in the press when he was involved in an investigation by a Select Committee of MPs who looked at the buying of votes in the 1859 Gloucester election. Several witnesses said that they had gone to the shop where Jacobs gave them £5 to vote for Charles James Monk. He was elected to one of the two seats in April but unseated in August, after a complaint was made. Despite this, Monk was re-elected as an MP several times after 1865.
The Committee inquiry found that
Jacobs had been given £177 from a total of £1,000 (today worth about £85,000)
from the Reform Club to spend on their candidate, Mr Monk. The Reform Club was set up by Liberal and
Whig MPs to counter the Tory Carlton Club. For many years, it was common for political
parties to pay people to vote for their candidates and to stop this, Parliament
brought in the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act of 1854. In December 1859 Harry
Jacobs was charged under the Act, but the judge threw out the case, because
Jacobs had given full details of the people he’d paid and been given a
certificate of exemption by the Select Committee.
Harry Jacobs’ ‘Little Dustpan’ was
very successful and he opened another shop in Cheltenham, while
a relative ran a third shop in Maidstone. Then after 23 years he announced in the Gloucester
Journal on 5 August 1876
that he was selling up and moving to London.
Money lending in London
Harry’s new enterprise was very
different to the ‘Little Dustpan’. He set up a money lending business with jeweller
Samuel Albert at the fashionable address of 128 Jermyn Street. The first advert we found for ‘S. Albert and Co’ was in
May 1879. Jacobs, like many other London dealers, lent money on a promissory note. The notes were
payable at the end of three months at a rate of one shilling per pound per
month, or 60% per annum. But if the money wasn’t repaid at the end of each
three month period, the interest was added in and so the sum owed increased
rapidly.
Harry Jacobs’ first London home was 27 Randolph Crescent. By 1885 he had moved to 18 Greville Road at the Kilburn
end of Maida Vale, where he died in 1903 leaving £16,261 (about £1.5M today), to
his sons Daniel Jay and Harry Vincent Jacobs.
About 1883 Daniel Jay had started
his own money lending business near his father at 90 Jermyn Street. His clients were often ‘young bucks’, who gambled and ran
into debt. Other clients were married woman who overspent their allowance and
relied on their husbands to pay their debts to Jay. Like his father, Daniel
made money from the business but he had to resort to the law to recover unpaid
loans; in all, between 1891 and 1912, he pursued nineteen cases through the
courts.
‘Lady Silk Tights’
One of these court appearances was
a very high profile case. In January 1898 Jay sued Sir Tatton Sykes and his
wife Lady Jessie for repayment of several promissory notes.
Sir Tatton Sykes, the 5th
Baron was born in 1826, the son of a wealthy landowner at Sledmere near Hull in East Yorkshire. As a sickly child he was bullied by his father who said
he was good for nothing. As an adult he became eccentric, wearing many layers
of overcoats to maintain his body temperature. He was also obsessed with his
health, eating a daily diet of milk puddings produced by a cook who accompanied
him wherever he went. Tatton’s only real interests were breeding racehorses and
building churches.
He was painfully shy but knew that he needed to marry and produce an heir to the estate. Despite his enormous wealth, he was turned down by several prospective wives. Then, when he was 48, he married the dashing 18 year old Jessie Cavendish-Bentinck, a granddaughter of the Duke of Portland. Jessie’s mother, Britannia, ensured that ‘the wedding of the season’ was a high society event. Held on 3 August 1874, Vanity Fair wrote, very tongue in cheek,
I hear there was a quiet little marriage
between Sir Tatton Sykes and Miss Bentinck, assisted by a 1,000 or so other
people, at a suburban retreat called Westminster Abbey.
Although Jessie tried her best and
threw herself into becoming the mistress of a great country house and travelled
with her husband on journeys around the world, the marriage simply did not
work. Jessie confided to a friend that it had taken Sir Tatton six months to
consummate the marriage, and then only when she’d got him drunk. Not
surprisingly, after a few years the couple decided to live apart: she at 46 Grosvenor Street in London while he stayed at Sledmere on his 34,000 acre estate.
Jessie quickly spent her £3,000 a
year allowance (worth about £280,000 today) as well as several lump sums which
Sir Tatton gave her. She ran up huge gambling debts, and was called the ‘greatest
woman Plunger’ of the century, (a plunger was the term for a reckless gambler).
The situation got out of hand and in December 1896 Sir Tatton was advised by
his lawyers to put an advertisement in the papers which said he would not be
responsible for any of Lady Sykes’ debts. He was the first husband to do this
by using an interpretation of the 1882 Married Woman’s Property Act, which ironically,
was actually designed to improve married women’s rights. Unfortunately for Sir
Tatton, the advert alerted all of Jessie’s debtors and they took him to court
to try to get the money they were owed. In court Tatton said Jessies’ debts currently
totalled £69,000, equivalent today to £6.5 million.
Daniel Jay sued Sir Tatton in January 1898 for £15,872 (about
£1.5M today) owed on promissory notes, and the five-day case was reported in
all the papers. The public were given an insight into the excessive spending
habits of Lady Sykes, which demonstrated that she had
no control over money. Sir Tatton’s barristers brought in a stream of witnesses
to show that the signatures on the five promissory notes given to Jay were not
those of Sir Tatton. The jury decided in Sir Tatton’s favour and Jay lost the
case. But if Sir Tatton had not signed the notes, then who did? The obvious
candidate was Lady Sykes, but the jury astonishingly never raised the idea that
she had forged his signature. It was believed, though never admitted, that Sir
Tatton later quietly paid Jay the money that Jessie owed him.
Sir Tatton and Jessie were certainly
an odd couple. After fighting each other in the court, they would ride home to Grosvenor Street in the same carriage and sit down to dinner together. Then the next morning, after breakfast, they
would return to court for another day of controversy.
But occasionally, when Sir Tatton
became exasperated by Jessie, he could be vicious. When their 16 year old son
Mark was returning to Sledmere from boarding school for the Easter holidays,
his father ordered the gamekeeper to kill Mark’s beloved terriers. A groom took
Mark and showed him the bodies of the dogs hanging from a tree. This terrible
act of cruelty was meant to upset Jessie rather than punish Mark.
Jessie had many lovers and held
lavish parties at her smart London house. On
her first trip to New
York she was called
‘the most spirited Lady Sykes’. But later, behind her back, she was dubbed ‘Lady
Silk Tights’ and lost her standing in society. She began to drink heavily and became
an alcoholic. Her loyal maid, Gotherd, was forced to hide her scent bottles as
Jessie would drink perfume if nothing else was available. Apparently, the maid
even had to conceal Jessie’s corsets, to prevent her drunken mistress from
going out and making a fool of herself.
But Jessie also had another and
creative side. She edited two weekly journals and wrote several novels. In
November 1899 she travelled to South Africa with her son Mark who by then was an officer, and nursed
the wounded in the Boer War, writing a book about her experiences which sold
well.
Jessie died in London in January 1912 and was buried in Sledmere. Sir Tatton was
overheard leaving the church saying, ‘Remarkable
woman, but I rue the day I met her.’ Jessie was however, loved by the
people of Hull for her good works and charitable gifts. She had delivered
Christmas treats to children in Hull for 25 years. Sir Tatton Sykes died in May 1913
leaving £289,446, worth about £24 million today, to his only child, Lt Colonel
Mark Sykes.
For a very good book about his family see Christopher Simon
Sykes book, ‘The Big House’ (2004).
The Actress
A few months after the ‘Lady Silk
tights’ case, Daniel Jay found himself on the other side of the court as a
defendant. He was sued in November 1898 by an American-born actress with the
stage name of Jenny McNulty. She said Jay had illegally taken furniture and
other items of hers and sold them in her absence. Since 1885 Jenny had been a
successful actress on the London stage and earned a good salary, ranging from £10 to £30
per week. In a review of a show at the Gaiety Theatre she was described
as, ‘a young and pretty damsel who was
greatly admired in ‘Adonis’ and is said to have drawn more money to the show
(when it was in New York).’
In 1893 Mary McNulty (her real
name) had met William Victor Paulet, who told her he was a wealthy gentleman. After
a year they married and stayed at her flat in Iddesleigh Mansions, Caxton Street
Westminster, where she had lived since 1885. After the marriage, Jenny
discovered that far from being independently wealthy, Paulet was in debt. She tried
to pay back some of what he owed, but finding it too expensive to stay in
London the couple moved in September 1895 to the large 14-room Spencer House in
Aylesbury.
In 1896 Jenny received a telegram saying
her father was ill and she sailed to America. Her father died in May and after Jenny had received no
letters from her husband for five months, she wrote asking William to send
money so she could return to England. But she still got no reply and could only afford to
return in April 1897. She made enquiries at his club ‘The Orleans’ in King Street and was told her husband had gone away. She asked Jay, who
had loaned William money, if he knew where William was. Jay said no, and
explained that while Jenny was in America, Paulet had sold him most of the furniture from Spencer
House for £500 to pay off his debts. Jenny then discovered that her home had
also been sold. She located some of her expensive stage dresses in the
Pantechnicon Repository (a storage facility), but they’d been thrown in a heap
and were ruined. Jenny was forced to return to the stage where she struggled to
make a living. Jay agreed to lend her more money, because he said the silver plate
she still owned was worth £150.
Sketches from the court case |
Jay told the court that he had
known Mr Paulet since 1891 and had made him many loans. In 1897 about £2,000
was still outstanding. Jay said he had also made loans to Mrs Paulet, at a zero
rate of interest. He said he’d become the couple’s friend and that Jenny had
confided in him on her return from America that she was penniless and so he
lent her small sums of money. But when he refused to lend any more, she threatened
him, saying she’d ‘make it hot for him’.
Jay denied that he had ever made any improper suggestions to Jenny, such as
using her beauty to obtain money from men. He believed that she was blackmailing
him and that was what this case was really about. Unfortunately for Jay, after
four days of evidence the jury decided in favour of Jenny McNulty and she was
awarded £1,000 (worth over £93,000 today).
William Paulet
William Paulet was a man of
mystery. We think he was born about 1849 in Hornsey. But he does not show up on any of the birth
records, so perhaps (like Jay), this was not his real name. Paulet first
appears on the 1871 census when he was living in Howland Street, St Pancras. In 1875 he had travelled to New York where he married Ada Louise Smith who came from a wealthy Connecticut family. Their first child, Maude, was born in Newquay in Cornwall in 1876. Then their son Henry was born in Saltzburg Austria in 1880 where Ada
died seven years later. William Paulet returned to England and he appears on the 1891 census as a lodger in 34-35 Jermyn Street, ‘a widower, aged 41 living on income’. It’s interesting
that Paulet was then living very close to Daniel Jay who was at number 90 Jermyn Street. Jay said this was when he first met Paulet and lent him
money. Paulet went bankrupt in July 1898 and disappeared before Jenny’s court
case against Jay. It’s believed that he returned to Austria and died in Vienna, but we haven’t been able to prove this. We could also not
find out what happened to Jenny McNulty after she won the case, but we
think she continued acting.
Money Lending
Money lending at high rates, or
usury, had been an issue for centuries. Concern grew in Victorian England and
when Edmund Yates set up ‘The World’ in 1874, it contained an article by Henry
Labouchere (known as ‘Labby’) attacking the so called ‘West-End Usurers’. He
named Henry Beyfus and Albert Boss of 7 Sackville Street who had charged an annual interest rate of 60% on loans to
Lord Albert Clinton. Beyfus and Boss prosecuted the paper for libel. The case
was defended by solicitor George Lewis who called moneylenders ‘base, vile and contemptible’ and it was eventually
adjourned. A few years later Labby set up his own paper called ‘Truth’ in which
he campaigned against fraudsters. In 1884 he named Daniel Jay and his father Harry
Jacobs as usurers.
In 1898 Parliament set up a Select
Committee to look at money lending. That April Jay was asked to give evidence.
He said he started his business in Jermyn Street fifteen years ago with £2,000 and had turned this into
£50,000 - £60,000. But he denied that he charged excessive interest rates or
put undue pressure on people to pay. Sir George Lewis, the most powerful lawyer
of his time, also gave evidence. He put a strong case against the West-End
usurers and pointed out their practice of sending out circulars advertising
their services. He was particularly annoyed about a new trend whereby Jay and
others, such as Samuel Lewis of Cork Street, preyed on married women and lent them money without their
husband’s knowledge. Other targets were young undergraduates who got into serious
debt and then relied on their fathers to pay off the loans. The confidant of
high society and royalty, Lewis gave examples of the many cases he had defended.
The Committee suggested that controls
needed to be tightened and this led to the Moneylenders Act of 1900 which
required registration of all lenders and allowed courts to dissolve unfair
agreements. A second Act in 1927 forbade money lenders employing agents or
sending out adverts. Today we have the Consumer Credit Act (1974) where traders
must have full licences with the Office of Fair Trading which can be revoked in
the event of irregularities. But similar concerns about payday loans still
exist. Wonga was recently forced by the new City financial regulator to wipe
out about £200 million on loans to 330,000 people, and scrap interest and
charges owed by a further 45,000 customers.
Jay leaves London
About 1909 Jay moved to ‘Lodene
Cottage, later ‘Lodene Greys’, Cookham in Berkshire
where he died in 1935. He was a rich man and left Carlotta £88,842 (equivalent
to £4.7 million today). She died there in 1941.
His old house on Shoot Up Hill was
taken over by Clark’s College which had a head office in Chancery Lane. The company was begun by George E. Clark in 1880 and
initially prepared people for the Civil Service Examination. The branch at
Cricklewood continued as a college at least into the 1960s. Today the building
has gone and the site is now a block of flats.