Allow me to introduce you to two couples: Sarah and the Reverend Thomas Fisher and Charles and Jane Ick (no, I’m not making that up). I came across these couples thanks to their houses, which were designed by the same architect, built within a couple of years of each other and not dissimilar in appearance. I was delighted to discover that they were connected by marriage: William, son of Thomas Fisher and his first wife, Harriotte, married Stella, daughter of Charles and Jane, in 1872 (Press 7/6/1872: 2). Examining the lives – and houses – of the Fishers and the Icks reveals more about how class, wealth and status played out in 19th century Christchurch.
Both couples arrived in New Zealand in the late 1850s, Sarah and Thomas settling in Christchurch and Charles and Jane in Dunedin. Thomas was a Methodist minister and was reputed to have arrived here with “a considerable sum of money” (Press 22/1/1890: 2). With this he bought land in and around Christchurch in the late 1850s and early 1860s, including several town sections, and rural sections in St Albans, Sefton and Irwell (LINZ c.1850: 23, 24, 839, 1318, 1319, 1332, c.1853: 66, 72, 699, c.1860a: 781, 1434, c.1860b: 1705, 1706, 4710, c.1860c: 4710, c.1860d: 5658). One of these land purchases was a prominent central city section, being the corner of Hereford and High streets, and it was here that Thomas established his grocery business. In fact, this location would become known as Fisher’s corner, and the building constructed here in 1880 was known as Fisher’s building until it was demolished following the Canterbury earthquakes.
Fisher’s building, 1978. Image: Christchurch Star Archive, 1978.
In addition to his business activities, Thomas was – unsurprisingly – heavily involved with the local Methodist church and organisations associated with that. He wasn’t particularly politically active, but the causes he championed and his other involvements in the city brought him into contact with many of the city’s elite (see, for example, Lyttelton Times 1/6/1859: 4, Press 18/11/1865: 1). Further, he was prominent enough in the city that his attendance at various public events was worthy of mention in newspaper reports of the day (Lyttelton Times 30/4/1867: 2, 4/9/1867: 5 Press 23/4/1869: 2, 12/11/1873: 2, 21/2/1883: 3). Thomas’s occupation – Methodist minister – meant that he and Sarah were upper middle class and I would describe their position in the city as elite-adjacent, as they were not amongst the city’s power-brokers or leaders but Thomas clearly mingled with them (McAloon 2000, Olssen and Hickey 2005: 57-58, 163). Their wealth, however, placed them firmly in the upper echelons of society: Thomas left an estate of £30,000 when he died in 1890 (Fisher 1890).
Like many women in 19th century Christchurch, Sarah appeared in the newspaper only to advertise for servants, and on her death (Star (Christchurch): 31/5/1879: 2, Lyttelton Times 13/2/1884: 1, Press 21/7/1891: 8). Sarah’s life is likely to have revolved around managing her house, looking after Thomas’s children and paying calls. Like Thomas, she may have belonged to organisations associated with the Methodist church or other community organisations, but the couple’s social status may have meant that her involvement was not considered worthy of mention.
In 1879, Sarah (aged 62) and Thomas (71) built their retirement home. This, however, was no case of down-sizing. The two-storeyed house they built, known as Cotswold House, was designed by local architect J. C. Maddison and had 18 rooms, including a drawing room, dining room, breakfast room, seven bedrooms (one of which may have been for a servant), a linen closet, kitchen, pantry, toilet and bathroom (there were also three halls; Lyttelton Times 16/8/1879: 7, 13/2/1884: 1, 29/7/1891: 8). It also had a conservatory (Press 1/8/1891: 8). But those seven bedrooms?! When only one of Thomas’s children was living at home (Macdonald 1952-64: F141, Shortian n.d.). Why so big? Perhaps to house visiting family and friends? Or perhaps because the Fishers felt that this house as cognisant with their wealth and status?
The street-facing elevation of Cotswold House, the house Sarah and Thomas Fisher built in 1879. Image: M. Hennessey, Ōtautahi Christchurch Archaeological Archive.
The east elevation, Cotswold House. Image: M. Hennessey, Ōtautahi Christchurch Archaeological Archive.
Charles and Jane Ick started their New Zealand lives in Dunedin, before moving to Waikouaiti for a few years and then finally to Christchurch, in 1870 (Otago Witness 12/11/1859: 3, 2/4/1870: 2). In Dunedin, Charles operated a drapery firm, but he sold that to start farming in Waikouaiti (Otago Witness 19/11/1859: 2). Once in Christchurch, Charles went into business as an auctioneer, but did briefly operate a drapery firm here too (Globe 25/9/1879: 2, Lyttelton Times 15/8/1870: 4, 29/1/1874: 1). Charles’s auctioneering business specialised in farm and dairy produce, seafood, grocery items and household furniture, as well as the occasional auction of household and business lots and sales under the bailiff’s orders. My favourite of his auctions, though, are for birds: one for 500 canaries, 100 chaffinches and a range of other song birds, apparently from Germany; and a second for the most fabulous-sounding – and looking – chickens (Press 22/11/1879: 3, 21/5/1880: 8). Black breasted red game! Silver and gold pencilled Hamburgs! White crested black polish! Silver spangled Hamburgs! Their names alone make me want one! The song birds suggests a trend for caged birds in Victorian houses, while the poultry theme is one that runs through 19th century Christchurch life. Charles sold the auctioneering business in 1882 (aged 55), and it’s not really clear what he did after that, but he died in 1885, Jane having died in 1883 (Press 5/4/1882: 3, 4/12/1883: 2, 28/4/1885: 2). Jane’s death notice states that she died after a lingering illness – maybe Charles gave up his business to look after her (Press 4/12/1883: 2)? Charles’s estate was worth £2300 at the time of his death (Ick 1885).
Fancy chickens for sale! Image: Press 21/5/1880: 8.
Charles Ick’s auction of song birds, 1879. Image: Press 22/11/1879: 3.
Unlike Thomas, Charles was politically successful (Thomas unsuccessfully stood for public office in 1862; Lyttelton Times 1/3/1862: 4). Charles was elected to the Christchurch Municipal Council throughout the 1870s, and served two terms as mayor at the end of the decade (Macdonald 19652-64: I2). He also had charitable interests, sitting on the board of the Christchurch Benevolent Association and the Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, as well as being involved with the Mutual Benefit Building and Investment Society (Lyttelton Times 18/7/1882: 1, Press 3/11/1876: 1, 18/6/1883: 3). While Charles was a patron for some performances at the Theatre Royal in his role of mayor, he did not have the social prominence of Thomas Fisher (Press 22/9/1880: 1). And, as with Sarah, we know little about Jane: she advertised for servants, but does not otherwise appear in the newspapers of the day (e.g. Press 22/11/1882: 1). Like Sarah, she would have been involved with her children’s lives and managed the household (as evidenced by the servant advertisements). She, too, may have paid calls to friends and families and may well have been involved with other community organisations, but these activities remain hidden.
As noted above, William Fisher and Stella Ick married in 1872. In 1881, Charles and Jane built a house in Papanui Road, also designed by J. C. Maddison (Press 27/10/1872: 3). It shared a number of similarities with the Fishers’ house: bays and gable ends on two elevations, window pediments and brackets, portholes in the gable apexes, a string-course and the distinctive over-sized moulded eaves brackets on the gable end (most of which had been removed from the Icks’ house). While some of these features were not uncommon in houses of this nature (the window treatment and the bays and gable ends on two elevations), others were less common (the portholes and the string-course). These are small details, but examining plans for houses of a similar vintage from the Armson Collins Collection indicates they were unusual at the time, and that the wealthy of this period typically built houses with stickwork decoration in the gable ends. Nor were these features common on other Maddison-designed houses. There were also differences between the exterior of the two houses: Cotswold House did not have finials and had far more ornate veranda decoration, along with a splayed bay window, and the panelling below the bay windows was different. It’s impossible to prove, but given their family connection, it’s not unreasonable to think that the Fishers were perhaps the inspiration for the Icks commissioning Maddison to design their house, and perhaps also for some of the design elements chosen.
The street-facing (left) and west elevations of Charles and Jane Ick’s house. Image: L. Tremlett, Ōtautahi Archaeological Archive.
The biggest difference between the two houses was in fact their size: Cotswold House had 18 rooms, the Icks’ house 10. The Icks did not have a breakfast room and had just the four bedrooms, although they did have a conservatory (Lyttelton Times 16/8/1885: 8). Some of the service rooms in the two houses may have been different, too, but this is more difficult to assess. In general, the greater the range of room types in a house, the higher the status of the occupant. While these distinctions are small and subtle in this case – the presence or absence of a breakfast room – Christchurch’s 19th century residents would have been well aware of them, and the implications thereof. The houses were the same width and, from the street, they would have looked the same size (due to 20th century modifications to Cotswold House, it is not possible to compare the floor area). The houses were on opposite sides of the city, so the point here is not necessarily one of direct comparison (although that point could be made), more about how one presented oneself to the world in 19th century Christchurch, with importance being placed on the size and scale of the house. This was achieved by building a two-storied house and by making the street-facing elevation as big as it could be – in practice, the latter often meant that a house was rectangular in plan, with the longer axis facing the street (the Fishers’ house was all but square in plan). Both houses stood well back on large sections, the Fishers’ being 4½ acres and the Icks’ 3 acres, features that would have added to the sense of scale (LINZ 1880, 1885).
Examining the lives and houses of these two couples provides an insight into the nuances of class, status and wealth in 19th century Christchurch. While both men had upper middle class occupations (yes, I’m also surprised that an auctioneer was an upper middle class occupation, but there you have it; Olssen and Hickey 2005: 163), the Fishers were far more wealthy and socially prominent in Christchurch than the Icks, in spite of Charles’s role as mayor of the city. The houses the two couples built reflect these differences, although this may have been driven largely by wealth, with social position having little relevance. Their quite different levels of wealth, and their different social connections in the city, highlight the nuance within a single occupational ‘class’ category, and that occupational class does not equal social position. It also highlights that taking on a public role such as mayor – effectively, leader of the city – did not necessarily bring social connections with it. But why was the social position of the Icks different from that of the Fishers? Did it relate to money? Or did it stem from family origins, something that is often touted as has having been left behind by English colonial settlers? Thomas’s grandfather and mother were deemed worthy of mention in his obituary, for their occupation and house respectively, but Charles’s obituary made no mention of his parents or grandparents (Press 28/4/1885: 2, 22/1/1890: 2). Or was the difference to do with what the two couples wanted from life? When discussing class status and social position, it’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that people wanted to move up through the social ranks (as it were), and it would be easy to sell this as a story of Charles and Jane wanting what Sarah and Thomas had, and thus setting out to achieve that by emulating them through their housing choices (Bell 2002). Social connections and social position may have meant little to them, however, and they may have placed more emphasis on other aspects of their lives, such as service to the community.
Katharine Watson
*Jim McAloon has defined the wealthy in 19th century Canterbury as those who died leaving an estate worth more than £10,000 (McAloon 2002: 15).
References
Bell, Alison, 2002. Emulation and empowerment: material, social and economic dynamics in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Virginia. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 6(4): 253-98.
Christchurch Star Archive, 1978. Available at: https://canterburystories.nz/collections/archives/star/prints/1978/ccl-cs-2684
Fisher, Richard Thomas, 1890. FISHER Thomas Richard – Sydenham – Gentleman. Archives New Zealand, Christchurch office.
Globe. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers
Ick, Charles Thomas, 1885. ICK Charles Thomas – Christchurch – Gentleman (probate file). Archives New Zealand, Christchurch office.
LINZ, c. 1850. Canterbury Land District Deeds Index – A – Christchurch Town Sections and Town Reserves. Archives New Zealand, Christchurch office.
LINZ, c.1853. Canterbury Land District Deeds Index – C1 – 1 to 750 – Rural Sections Register. Archives New Zealand, Christchurch office.
LINZ, c.1860a. Canterbury Land District Deeds Index – C2 – 751 to 1484 – Rural Sections Register. Archives New Zealand, Christchurch office.
LINZ, c.1860b. Canterbury Land District Deeds Index – C3 – 1485 to 2238 – Rural Sections Register. Archives New Zealand, Christchurch office.
LINZ, c.1860c. Canterbury Land District Deeds Index – C7 – 4533 to 5294 – Rural Sections Register. Archives New Zealand, Christchurch office.
LINZ, 1860d. Canterbury Land District Deeds Index – C8 – 5295 to 6108 – Rural Sections Register. Archives New Zealand, Christchurch office.
LINZ, 1882. Certificate of title 86/59, Christchurch. Land Information New Zealand.
LINZ, 1885. Certificate of title 107/280, Christchurch. Land Information New Zealand.
Lyttelton Times. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers
Macdonald, G. R., 1952-64. Macdonald Dictionary of Canterbury Biography. Canterbury Museum.
McAloon, Jim, 2000. The Christchurch elite. In: John Cookson and Graeme Dunstall, ed. Southern Capital, Christchurch: Towards a City Biography 1850-2000., Canterbury University Press, Christchurch. Pp. 193-221.
McAloon, Jim, 2002. No Idle Rich: The Wealthy in Canterbury and Otago 1840-1914. University of Otago Press, Dunedin.
Olssen, Erik, and Maureen Hickey, 2005. Class and Occupation: The New Zealand Reality. University of Otago Press, Dunedin.
Otago Witness. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers
Press. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers
Shortian, n.d. Rev Thomas Richard Fisher. [online] Available at: https://www.ancestry.com.au/family-tree/person/tree/28849058/person/12514637379/facts?_phsrc=AxX295&_phstart=successSource [Accessed 23 July 2021].
Star (Christchurch). Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers