.
.

Section 45
The Dartford Brickmakers

From at least the mid 18th century there was a Brush family based in what is now South London but was then still part of Surrey and Kent. An analysis of the known information is contained in  Before getting into the detail I have reproduced the typewritten introduction written (in the 1990s?) by my father:

BRICKMAKERS

There is a BRUSH family which occurs in South London at the same time as our own group(1) and was, at the start of our researches, confused with that group.  For simplicity they are referred to as the "Dartfords" or the "Brickmakers" but they do, in fact, cover quite a large territory, mainly in South London and Essex and in North Kent.  To avoid confusion with similar names it is proposed to use the prefix 'B' before numbers in the description of the descent of this group.

As with the main group with which we are concerned, there is some conjecture in the first two or three generations.  In this case, researches have not gone so far back, since our investigations have concentrated on the main group, and in order to make some comparison with the main group possible the earliest members of whom we have some knowledge are considered to be of the sixth generation.  Most of the information here is from St. Catherine's House,(2) which means no earlier than 1837.  Some London and Surrey church registers have produced names which fit the pattern, but much more work remains to be done.

It is certain that the name BRUSH occurred in the City of London before the Plague and Fire and it is possible that it was from these inhabitants of London that the Brush group in Bermondsey and South London derived well before our own "migrants" from Wiltshire and Gloucestershire moved to London in the first decade of the nineteenth century.  Again, the note in the main Family History concerning two apprentice cloth-workers from Oxfordshire shows that the name could well have come into the City from outside.  It is doubtful if we shall ever know the large number of London churches makes the examination of even those registers which remain a daunting task.

The coincidence that both our own group and the 'Brickmakers' group lived in parts of suburban Surrey at the same time poses other questions.  Did they know each other, even though not related?  It is hard to believe that two or more families sharing the same surname in the Cheam/ Penge/ Croydon area would not have made some contact.  Again, it is unlikely that we shall ever know.

There was emigration from this 'Brickmakers' group to Australia.(3)  The Author received two telephone calls from a member of an emigrant family but promised details and documents never materialised.  Although it was difficult to be certain, it would appear that there was confusion between the two groups, the 'correspondent' referring to members of the main group as if they were of his own family.  This might well suggest knowledge of, if not relationship with, the two groups.

I do have several doubts about the conclusions reached by my father, at least about the first three generations and there are several records which, in a pre-internet age, he did not have access to.  He did recognise that his conclusions involved some conjecture.  I have also been helped by work done by those looking at the Brash family. (4)

FWB also found entries relating to a Samuel in the records of the Merchant Taylors company (in records at the Guildhall?):

Samuel Brush. Son of John Brush of the Parish of St Saviour's, Southwark in the County of Surrey Brushmaker to William Tustin(5) in 1726 for 7 years £10.
Index. 1st September 1736 adm.   Admitted by serving.  In the same year Samuel takes on William Denny as an apprentice.

A baptism for Samuel,the son of John (a brushmaker) and Elizabeth,is recorded on 8 May 1712 at St Saviour's, Southwark.

If this was Samuel [B1] this takes the tree back one generation with the introduction of John [B0].  As far as I know John is the only Brush recorded as a brushmaker.  But, it seems unusual to find a marriage at age 22 while a man is still an apprentice.  Also, when Samuel and Susanna bury their first son James in 1744, Samuel is described as a cooper which is very different from being admitted as a merchant tailor.   Although we have no other records of Samuel, son of John and Elizabeth, we cannot simply assume the two Samuels were the same man.

In addition to the two sons identified by FWB there is a baptism of Susannah, daughter of Samuel and Susannah, on 30 January 1736 (born 22 January 1736 - old style?) at and of Samuel born on 10 September 1739 and baptised in October 1739, both at Christ Church, Newgate Street, Southwark.

The second son named James was born on 17 April 1747 and baptised on 8 May 1747 at St Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, the register helpfully gives birth date as well.   He is identifed as the son of Samuel Brush and Susanna.

As stated above, James [B4] is born in 1747 rather than 1744 as derived from his age given at death.   At some point before 1767 he married Mary, who died in the Bermondsey workhouse and was buried on 3 March 1820 at St Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey.  Her age was given as 77 which, if correct, puts her birth as 1742/43. This makes James quite young at marriage.

James died in 1815 in the Bermondsey workhouse and was buried at St Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey on 10 February 1815.  His age is given as 70, which from the baptism record overstates his age by 3 years,

FWB identifies three children.  I have not seen any baptism record for James [B6] or for Margaret [B7] - he derives their birth years from their given age at death, both from the workhouse. In two previous cases the age given by the workhouse is a bit overstated and I wonder if this applies also to James and Margaret.  I recall from somewhere else that workhouses differentaited between inmates of working age and elderly inmates who had a slightly less harsh time of it.

In any event I am not sure that the Margaret who died in 1851 was a daughter of James[B4] and Mary.  There is a marriage of a James Brush to a Margaret Anderson in 1793 at Deptford and a baptism of another James 'BRASH' son of James and Margaret in Deptford in March 1796. There was also the marriage of a Margaret Brush in 1795 in 'Borough' to a William Rainbow. If Margaret Brush[B7] became Mrs Rainbow and Margaret Anderson became Mrs Brush[B6a] then the death in 1851 probably relates to Margaret Anderson.

Identifying Charles Brush [B8] as a son of James [B4] and Mary seems a bit speculative. That a Charles Brush married Jane Wallis in 1809 is properly documented. But linking him back to any particular family is not clear. If he was in his 20s at marriage then a birth in the 1780s is reasonable and James and

1

1712:   Samuel son of John, a brushmaker, & Elizabeth Brush baptised at St Saviour's Borough High Street
1726:   Samuel son of John taken on as apprentice merchant tailor
1736:   Samuel Brush, merchant tailor takes on an apprentice.

1734: Samuel Brush marries Susanna Rice.   By the dates, this could be Samuel son of John but he is decscribed in the entries for one of his children as a cooper ,which is very different from being a master merchant tailor.

1736: Susannah, daughter of Samuel and Susannah, on 30 January 1736 (born 22 January 1736 - old style?)Christ Church, Newgate Street, Southwark.
1739 : Samuel son of Samuel and Susanna Brush born on 10 September 1739 and baptised in October 1739, both at Christ Church, Newgate Street, Southwark.
1747 : James Brush son of Samuel and Susanna Brush (in Bermondsey) in 1747.

1742-3 Imputed YOB of Mary, who died in the Bermondsey workhouse and was buried on 3 March 1820 at St Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey.  Her age was given as 77.  This information comes from FWB tree but I have not been able to find it in Ancestry. He suggests she was the wife of James 1747 (or 1744-45)

1744-5 Imputed YOB of James buried in 1815, age 70, resident of Bermondsey workhouse = YOB 1744-5.  This could be James 1747 if his age in workhouse records was overstated.

1754 :   A James appears as the father of Mary Brush who was buried in 1754 in Newington.  Mary could be anything from 0 to 18, and possibly older if unmarried. If we take an arbitrary YOB for Mary as 1744 the YOB for James could be in the range 1704-1724 . He cannot be James 1744-5 or 1747

1757 : Marriage of Susanna Brush to Henry Hill at St Mary Newington.  

1767-1768 : Imputed YOB of James who died 29 Sept 1846 in Lambeth workhouse . 1841 census showes James age of 70 = YOB 1768-71

1772 : Baptism of James son of James & Mary Brush at Chatham.

1776 : Bapt of James Brash son of Matthias Brash in Holborn.
1780 : Bapt of Matthias Brash 1780 St Saviour Southwark (FHL only) ( a Matthias Brash, son of Matthias, was also baptised in 1781 in Darlington)

1775-1781 : Imputed YOB of Margt Brash age given as 60 in 1841 census in Kennington district of St Mary Lambeth parish, livng alone Her birthplace is given as Scotland. In 1851 census at Lambeth workhouse her age is given 73 = YOB 1777-1778 and her birthplace as Fort George in Scotland .

1777-78 Imputed YOB of Margaret who died in Lambeth workhouse in 1851 .  This could be Margaret nee Anderson who married James in 1793 but that would make her just 16 at marriage

1786-7 : Imputed birth of Charles who married Jane Wallis in 1809. The 1851 census says he is 64, living Erith in Kent but born in Leigh, Essex. The 1841 census gives range of 1786-1791 . The 1871 census, Dartford work gives his age as

Marriage of James Brush to Margaret Anderson 1793 Deptford ( fairly sure it is Brush but also claimed as Brash). This could be James 1776 but it is rather young - just 17. It seems more likely to be could be James 1767-8 or James 1772

1796 : bapt of James Brash son of James, labourer and Margaret at Deptford
1798 Margaret Brash daughter of James, and Margaret at Deptford

1798 : Marriage of James Brash to Eleanor Burnett at Whitechapel

1799 Baptism of James , son of James and Eleanor Brash at Scots Church, Woolwich. Unlike most entries in this register James is not identified as military.

1795 : Marriage of Margaret Brush to William Rainbow,witnessed by James Brush (mark X) at St George the Martyr, Borough High Sreet 1795

1803 : Baptism of Maria, daughter of John and Maria Brush at St James, Piccadilly, Westminster. Could this John be the father of Margaret who married in 1839

1805-1811 Imputed birth of John living in Bethnal Green at 1841 census age 30 1808-09 Imputed birth of John in Lambeth, from 1861 census age 52

1809 : Marriage of Charles Brush to Jane Wallis 1809 St Mary Newington. The 1851 census has them living in Erith, Dartford (without chidren) and gives Charles' birthplace as Erith , and his occupation as a fishmonger with an imputed birth year as 1786-7

1810-1816 Imputed birth of James living in Bethnal Green at 1841 census age 25

1814 : Marriage of James Brash, labourer, to Jane Croney at St Mary Lambeth. Is this James 1796 age 18? Or James 1776? Jane's imputed YOB from 1841 census is1780-86

1815 : bapt of Margaret Brush daughter of James & Jane at St Mary Newington
1820 : Bapt of William James son of James and Jane (Brush or Brash) St Mary Newington. In 1841 census William ( age given as 20 = YOB 1820-21) with wife Ann is in St Mary Newington district. Jane age 55 (YOB = 1780-86) is in the same household. So are Louis and Margaret Heron. Margaret's age is given as 27 (=YOB 1813-14, unusual precise age for 1841 C.)
Bapt of James son of James and Jane (Brush or Brash)1820 St Mary Newington
Bapt of Mary Ann daughter of James and Jane (Brush or Brash) St Mary Islington born 1820, bapt Peckham 1830

1821 : Marriage of Margaret Brash to John Blackburn St Mary Newington.  This could be Margaret 1798

1839 Marriage of Margaret Brash Daughter of John Brash, decd, to Lewis Hearon on 19 May 1839 at Saint Mark's, Kennington - witnesses William Brush and Mary Brash.  The naming of John, decd, as father means this cannot be Margaret 1815 who was the daughter of James.Margaret is 35 at 1851 census so 1815/16. John decd must have been born sometime in the 1790s or earlier.

1841 census : John and Margaret Brush are listed in Brixton district of Lambeth. Margaret is given as age 26 ( unsually precise for 1841 C.) so YOB = 1815 , John is unclear.Possibly 30? or 70? If 30 then YOB is 1806-1811. Allso daughter Margaret age 2

1846 : Marriage of Mary Ann Brush Daughter of James Brush, brickmaker a St Giles Cripplegate - witnesses Lewis and Margaret Heron. Margaret Heron has to be Margaret the daughter of John, decd. So, not Mary Ann's sister but a cousin - the 1851 census uts her YOB as 1815-16.  If she was a cousin then James & John were brothers

Burials Will of Matthias Bras, ship steward leaving all to wife Elizabeth of Darlington, plus ref to brother John And a James who appears as the father of Mary Brush who was buried in 1754 in Newington. Who it was who married Margaret Anderson and Jane Croney I am less sure of but I'm fairly sure my father's tree misses out a generation.

(1) back to text    This rather overstates the overlap. My own ancestors only moved from Wiltshire to the London area in the early 19th century but by the mid 19th century some of them were living in the Lambeth area.

(2) back to text    St Catherine's House on the Aldwych was where the GRO index books used to be held - inthe dayss when information had to be extracted by looking at each of the enormous index books. My parents and I checked each one.

(3) back to text    Brush families in Austalasia will be considered in section 50 but it is not yet online.

(4) back to text    As explained elsewhere my father, FWB, worked for many decades on a detailed Brush one-name study - in the years before internet research.

(5) back to text   

(6) back to text   

(7) back to text   

(8) back to text    A phrase from More Irish families by Edward MacLysaght (not fully viewable online). Childs also says in General Percy Kirke and the Later Stuart Army that Crofton "had suffered the ….indignity of being purged by Tyrconnell in 1686".

(9) back to text    Burke's Irish Family Records. London, U.K.: Burkes Peerage Ltd, 1976

(10)Coyle and Duffy include this tree showing the development of the family and expand on this in the text of their article on the Crane cousins.