Earnshaw
is well known for his contribution to the refinement of Marine Chronometers
with his spring detent escapement, (1783 patent in the name of Thomas Wright)
and for his dispute with Arnold to which that invention gave rise. Speculating on his disposition, the word
‘disgruntled’ comes to mind and not only with Arnold, but also with the Board
of Longitude, (leading to his Appeal to
the Public, 1808), and, persistently, with various creditors who , not
unreasonably, sought his imprisonment on grounds of insolvency.
The
standard horological reference works – Baillie, Loomes, Mercer - tend to dwell
on Thomas himself, 1749-1829, and his son, also Thomas, b1784. Britten’s does go further, recording two more
generations, but I believe that I have identified no less than five Thomas
Earnshaw fathers-and-sons, born successively in 1749 – 1784 – 1809 or 1811 –
1835 – 1862.
Thomas
II (b1784) carried on the business at 119 High Holborn, according to the ‘brand’s’
current website, until 1854. Mercer
suggests that latterly he moved the business to 87 Fenchurch Street. At the time of the 1851 Census he was living
at 12 Union Road, Clapham. Although
there is some doubt about dates/locations, an important milestone is recorded
around the years 1841-2. In the
1820s/1830s the production of top quality Earnshaw chronometers declined. Anthony Randall has observed that Thomas II
possibly lacked his father’s technical ability and interest in chronometry and
was content to be the maker of more ordinary watches, ‘for purely civil use’.1 The latest movement number with
hallmark-verified date is #7131/1841.
The date is significant in that it was in 1842 that Thomas II’s name
appeared on a list of Directors for the nascent British Watch and Clockmaking
Company. Although Thomas’s name – as did
John Barwise’s and John Frodsham’s – lent credibility to the prospects of the industrial-model
company, the traditional trade’s opposition won the day, and the business was
defunct before it had ever really got going.2
The
third Thomas was born around 1810.
Whilst next to nothing is documented about his watchmaking, numerous
pieces of paper were required to record the fecund nature of Thomas III’s
marriage to Jane Cunningham: they had nine children, born across the years 1835
to 1848. The first-born was Thomas
IV. The household must have been a
lively, crowded milieu at the time of the 1851 Census since Thomas had two
apprentices – James Dean and James Bacon – also living-in, at 48 St John’s Street,
Clerkenwell.
It’s
a shame not more is known about this Thomas – he was, I suspect, a ‘colourful’
character. When only 15 he was involved
in a dispute over the affections for one Miss Dowler. It was alleged that Thomas had issued to a
rival a challenge to a duel, but this evidently was ultimately found to be a
hoax.
As
noted above, Thomas IV grew up in a fully occupied dwelling from which the
business was conducted in Clerkenwell, the traditional centre of the London
watchmaking trade. But, as the
nineteenth century progressed into its second half, that Trade was in decline, watches
from Switzerland and America taking ever higher market share. Although there had been failure in London
itself to introduce a more efficient/cost-competitive manufacturing model,
semi-industrialisation was established in Lancashire and Coventry. There was a degree of migration of
watchmaking individuals and families from London to these areas. Thus Thomas was to be found for the 1891
Census in Solihull and in Coventry for those of 1901 and 1911.
The
‘last’ watchmaking Thomas Earnshaw, son of Thomas IV, was born in 1862. He was still living at home with his father
and mother, Annie, in 1891, but is untraceable after that date. Thomas IV, though by then 75 years of age, was
still recorded as working when the 1911 Census was conducted.
For
a good overview of extant Earnshaw timepieces, I’d recommend a visit to David
Penney’s Antique Watch Store http://www.antiquewatchstore.com/search?controller=search&orderby=position&orderway=desc&search_query=earnshaw&submit_search=&p=2
1 A G
Randall, Thomas Earnshaw’s Numbering Sequence, Antiquarian Horology, Vol17 No4,
Summer 1988
2 Alun
C Davies, The Ingold Episode Revisited, Antiquarian Horology, Vol31 No5, Sept
2009
