Harriet and Joseph Francis strike me as ambitious young things. Which is no bad thing. They arrived in Christchurch in 1876, newly married, pregnant and ready to tackle colonial life (Church of England Marriages and Banns 1875, Lyttelton Times 23/9/1876: 2). As with most migrants to New Zealand, they were seeking something better than they had left behind. Joseph came from a family in Wiltshire, all of whom worked in the woollen mills (England Census 1861). Except for Joseph, who trained as a law clerk (England Census 1871). Was this his decision, to take a different (and ‘better’) career path from his parents and siblings, or was it one made by his parents? We’ll never know and, on balance, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference. The point is that, even before he left England, Joseph was on a different trajectory from the rest of his family. Unfortunately, I know far less about Harriett and thus it’s difficult to explore what might have motivated her.
Although Harriett and Joseph’s early life in the city is hard to trace, I know that they lived in Oxford Terrace, before moving to Peterborough Street and that Joseph worked as a waiter (Lyttelton Times 23/9/1876: 2, Wise’s 1878-79: 66). In 1878, Joseph bought a 405 square metre section in the Avon loop, an area that was just starting to develop as a working class suburb (LINZ 1878). Very soon thereafter, he commissioned architect J. C. Maddison to design a house for this land (Lyttelton Times 1/10/1878: 4). Now, there’s not a lot of information on how common it was to commission an architect to design a house in 19th century Christchurch, or even less about much it cost to do so, but I suspect it added significantly to the cost of a build. Further, in my PhD research, I looked at a sample of 101 houses from across Christchurch and just eight were designed by architects, three of whom were architects designing houses for themselves.
So why did Harriett and Joseph choose to commission an architect? Good question. It’s also a question for which there is no clear answer, because the resulting house was, well, spectacularly ordinary (PIC). Advertisements for the rental or sale of the house never mentioned that it was designed by Maddison (who would go on to be quite a prominent architect in the city) and it’s hard to see that the Francises gained anything for this expense. There is one tantalising detail, however, that could explain things. Joseph Francis worked as a waiter at the White Hart Hotel, owned by Joseph Oram Sheppard (Globe 31/1/1879: 3). Maddison designed extensions to the hotel in 1876, and it is possible that Sheppard recommended Maddison’s services to Joseph (Lyttelton Times 15/8/1876: 1).
Harriett and Joseph called their new house Cora Villa, named for one of their children who died in infancy (BDM Online, n.d., Lyttelton Times 27/11/1879: 1). Not only was the house fairly ordinary for its time and place, it was also a curious mixture of spending and saving. While the sash windows on the street-facing elevation were single pane, those on the sides and rear had two panes, a less fashionable and probably cheaper form. Likewise, only the street-facing elevation had rusticated weatherboards, with cheaper plain weatherboards used on the sides and rear. The house was small, too: at 78.9 square metres, it was smaller than the average working-class house. Money had also been saved by not having any built-in internal decoration, such as a hall arch or ceiling roses, ceiling cornices or plinth blocks. There were, however, four fireplaces, which was unusual for a working class house. Another unusual feature was that lath and plaster linings were used throughout the house – kitchens and sculleries were more typically lined with match-lining, which was cheaper than lath and plaster.
It seems that the Francises never lived in Cora Villa. Instead, just over a year after Maddison called for tenders for its construction, Joseph advertised it to rent (Lyttelton Times 27/11/1879: 1). Instead of living in their new house, Harriett and Joseph embarked on a career in hotelkeeping, assisted by one J. O. Sheppard (Lyttelton Times 27/11/1879: 1, 14/7/1880: 3). But things were not to go well and this relationship was not one that would benefit the young couple. In 1881, Joseph sold Cora Villa to Sheppard (LINZ 1878). The following year, Sheppard called in his debts, and Joseph was forced to give up the Rolleston Hotel and declare bankruptcy. A court case over Joseph’s debts to Sheppard revealed that he owned land in Waimate, Rolleston and Christchurch, but was heavily mortgaged (to the sum of at least £1400) and carried other debts relating to the purchase of supplies for the hotel (Star 30/6/1882: 3). Sheppard himself turned out to be in financial difficulties and was declared bankrupt the following year (Macdonald 1952-64: S290). Sheppard no doubt demanded repayment of Joseph’s debts to stave off his own bankruptcy, but the state of Joseph’s finances suggests it is unlikely he could have run the Rolleston Hotel for much longer, although he may have been able to avoid bankruptcy.
It is tempting to see the young Joseph as having come under Sheppard’s sway whilst working at the White Hart Hotel. Sheppard, who was only five years older than Joseph, was from a well-known family of hotel proprietors. Prior to his bankruptcy, he had done very well out of the White Hart (Macdonald 1952-64: S290). It is easy to imagine a situation where Joseph looked up to and was somewhat bedazzled by the successful Sheppard and was convinced that he could follow the same path to success. The two may even have become friends, given their similar ages. Perhaps Sheppard convinced Joseph that he too could make his fortune from hotels. Or perhaps it was a straightforward business arrangement. It is impossible to know from this distance. Joseph’s use of an architect to design Cora Villa certainly suggests someone who did not always make sound financial decisions, or decisions for the right reasons, and the details of his finances in 1882 support this. What is clear is that the relationship between the two men was fundamental to the trajectory that Harriett and Joseph’s lives took in Christchurch.
Harriett died in 1887, leaving Joseph with four children (BDM Online, n.d., Star 19/5/1887: 2). As was not uncommon in such a situation, Joseph remarried quickly, to Nellie Britt (BDM Online, n.d.). Remarrying quickly after the loss of a spouse was common for men in particular, in order not just to provide care for his children (and himself), but to keep the family on a sound financial footing (Cooper and Horan 2993: 207-208). Joseph and Nellie would have two children, only one of whom survived to adulthood (BDM Online, n.d.). Little more is known of Joseph’s life. By 1889, he was once again working as a waiter in a hotel, this time in Timaru, where he would live until his death in 1894 (NZER (Timaru), 1893: 22, Timaru Herald 21/3/1889: 3, 3/7/1894: 2, Wise’s 1892-93: 49).
What can we learn from this story of Harriett and Joseph and the house they built in the Avon loop? In the first instance, I think it speaks to their ambition and their desire for a better life in New Zealand. Part of that better life was the dream of owning a home of their own, with some land. This is a dream that was common to many of New Zealand’s 19th century settlers, and one that would have been far out of reach of a law clerk – or a waiter – in England at the time. It also speaks to the centrality of land, and land ownership, to the dreams of many of those 19th century settlers. And, even though things did not work out well for Harriett and Joseph, it gives an indication of the relative affordability of land and building in that time and place (thanks, in part, to the way in which it was cheaply acquired from Ngāi Tahu). In these things, Harriett and Joseph’s story speaks to the roots of the strong tradition of home ownership in Aotearoa. Finally, it also highlights that the hopes and dreams of those who came to New Zealand in the 19th century were not always met, and that the ‘settler’ experience was not always characterised by ‘success’.
Katharine Watson
References
Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) Online. Available at: https://www.bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/
Church of England Marriages and Banns [online]. Available at: http://home.ancestry.com.au/
Cooper, A. and Horan, M., 2003. Down and out on the Flat: the gendering of poverty. In: B. Brookes, A. Cooper and R. Law, ed. 2003. Sites of Gender: Women, Men and Modernity in Southern Dunedin, 1890-1939. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Pp. 207-208.
England Census [online]. Available at: http://home.ancestry.com.au/
Globe [online]. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers
LINZ, 1878. Certificate of title 34/251, Canterbury. Landonline.
Lyttelton Times [online]. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers
Macdonald, G. R., 1952-64. Macdonald Dictionary of Canterbury Biography [online]. Available at: https://collection.canterburymuseum.com/explore
New Zealand Electoral Roll (NZER) [online]. Available at: http://home.ancestry.com.au/
Star [online]. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers
Timaru Herald [online]. Available at: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers
Wise’s New Zealand Post Office Directory, 1866-1954 [online]. Available at: http://home.ancestry.com.au/