Smith & Baber's Floorcloth Factory
Before the construction of the Harrods depot the dominating building on the Trevor estate was Smith & Baber's
floorcloth factory, on the west side of Trevor Place. Built in
the early 1820s, this was one of several noteworthy structures, most of them now destroyed, erected in London for
the manufacture of ornamental painted floorcloth, an
industry particularly associated with the capital. With its
tall belvedere tower, Smith & Baber's factory was for some
seventy years a distinctive local landmark. The tower was
demolished in the 1890s, but the shell of the building survived into the 1970s.
It was the firm's third factory. The first was erected in
the mid-eighteenth century for Nathan Smith, whose sonin-law, James Baber, later claimed that Smith had founded
the works in 1754. In fact a date some ten years later is more
likely to be correct. Baber's further assertion that it had
been the first floorcloth manufactory was more or less
specious. (Both claims were embodied in a prominent
inscription on the 1820s building.) (ref. 58) There certainly were
earlier factories – one of them in Knightsbridge, just east of
what is now Sloane Street (see page 31) – though they were
not necessarily on such a large scale as Smith's, nor perhaps
were their products comparable with his in quality and
durability.
It was in March 1763 that Nathan Smith, a painterstainer of Fenchurch Street, patented a composition and
machinery for making floorcloth. Oil-cloth used as a relatively inexpensive floor-covering had then been around for
many years, since the very early eighteenth century if not
before. (ref. 59) It was also utilized for awnings, tents and garden
buildings. The manufacturing process involved covering
the canvas base with several thick coats of paint, and then
applying a printed pattern with wooden blocks. By the late
eighteenth century techniques had reached a high degree
of sophistication, allowing production of very large and
elaborately patterned cloths.
A problem with the earlier floorcloths was that the
water-soluble size or glue used to prime the canvas backing
would go soft if the cloth was washed down, causing the
paint to peel. Smith's patent composition, which had to be
pressed into the cloth by a rolling apparatus, was intended
to supersede sizing. (ref. 60) He is also credited with introducing two further innovations in floorcloth manufacture:
block-printing instead of stencilling for making patterns;
and 'seamless' floorcloth, achieved at first by sewing canvases together without a raised seam, and later by using
specially woven canvas of exceptional width. (ref. 61)
Whatever his earlier involvement, if any, in floorcloth
making, it seems certain that Smith's factory originated as
a workshop built on ground adjoining Powis House in
1764. (ref. 62) The exact circumstances of the building of the
factory, however, and the nature of Smith's tenancy, are
unclear. Possibly the building was erected for manufacturing floorcloth using his newly patented process, though the
first ratepayer was Jonathan Durden esquire, who lived at
a neighbouring house in South Place for a few years, and
Smith's name does not appear in the ratebooks in connection with this building until 1766. In 1785 a lease of the
factory site (about an acre in extent) was granted by the
Trevors to the builder Henry Holland, during the lives of
two of his sons, Henry (the architect) and Richard, and the
Prince of Wales. Holland assigned this lease to another son,
John, who appears to have continued to hold it for many
years. Smith presumably, therefore, became an undertenant of John Holland, and it may be that the Hollands
had some interest in the business. (ref. 63)
In February 1794 a fire destroyed the original factory.
The cost of the damage, including the loss of £15,000worth of materials for the cavalry and other government
contracts, amounted to £20,000, and as nothing was
insured a collection was set up to help the proprietors,
which managed to raise about £500. Within a couple of
years a new factory had been built on the same site, together with a dwelling-house; a second house was built later
(see Plate 5c). (ref. 64) A design for the new factory was shown at
the Royal Academy in 1794 by W. S. Newman (who had
earlier exhibited at the Academy giving his address as Mr
Smith's, Knightsbridge). (ref. 65)
Although a building with some pretensions to style, the
'Phoenix' floorcloth factory was, according to W. W.
Pocock, only made of wood (Plate 54d). (ref. 66) It stood well back
from the road behind a grass area with a goldfish pond and
a statue of Time standing near by, holding his scythe and
hour-glass. (ref. 67)
Nathan Smith seems to have retired in 1798, (ref. 68) evidently
to Brighton (if he was the Brighthelmestone gentleman
named Nathan Smith who, late that year, patented a
vapour-bath contraption for treating gout). (ref. 69) The factory
was taken over by his son-in-law James Baber, a man of
humble origin who had trained as a mason and stonecutter,
and with whom Soane is said to have worked at one time. (ref. 70)
Between 1822 and 1824 Baber's factory was rebuilt on a
much grander scale than previously. The new site, which
was a portion of the field in which the original factory had
been built, had a narrow frontage to Knightsbridge and
extended southwards along the west side of what is now
Trevor Place. It was extended further south in 1828, as far
as the roadway at the north end of Montpelier Square, on
ground recently acquired by Lord Dungannon from T. W.
Marriott. (ref. 71) Two houses (Nos 1 and 2 South Place), also
included in the site, were occupied for many years by the
Baber family or their employees. (ref. 72)
The new factory was designed by W. F. Pocock, Lord
Dungannon's estate surveyor. It was an architectural composition of some distinction, shown to good effect in a
contemporary perspective view, probably drawn by Pocock
himself (Plate 54a). (ref. 73) Visitors entered through a domed
rotunda at the north end, which gave on to a single-storey
showroom, south of which lay the manufactory itself.
This comprised a large block of more than double-storey
height containing the framing- and drying-rooms, where
the floorcloths spent the greater part of the time-consuming manufacturing process, mounted in wooden frames for
priming and painting or simply hanging up to dry (Plate
54b). The interim stage of block-printing was carried out
above in the lower stage of the central tower. Particularly
long floorcloths were hung up to dry from the tower, reaching down into the drying-room. Other activities, including
paint-making, block-making, and carpentry repairs, were
carried out in smaller rooms at the south end of the premises. The tower, which may not have been completed for several years after the opening of the factory, was built to a
different design from that shown in Pocock's perspective
(Plate 6b). The engraving used on the firm's stationery, as
much as two years before the new factory can have been in
use, shows the tower completed only up to its first stage; (ref. 74)
an increase in rateable value in 1828 may mark its completion. (ref. 75)
Smith & Baber's products had a considerable reputation, and the manufacturing techniques used at the factory
(where nineteen men were employed in 1851) (ref. 76) were wellpublicized during its heyday. (ref. 77)
After the closure of the floorcloth factory about 1888,
the premises were acquired by J. C. Humphreys (the future
purchaser of the Trevor estate) and used by him for several years for manufacturing iron buildings. Humphreys had
entered into an agreement to redevelop the site with houses or flats, (ref. 78) but this scheme was ultimately abandoned and
in 1894 he let the factory to an ice-skating company. There
was strong opposition from some nearby residents (including Lord Llangattock at South Lodge), and a music and
dancing licence for the proposed 'Pôle Nord' was refused
by the London County Council. (ref. c) When the project did go
ahead, as Prince's Skating Club – an offshoot of the nearby
Prince's Club – there were various restrictions to ensure
that it did not become a nuisance, including a ban on alcohol, singing and late-night opening. Moreover, ice-skating
was restricted to a six-month season, with 'high class entertainments' only to be held during the rest of the year. (ref. 80)
Opened in September 1896, the Prince's Skating Club
retained little of the old factory beyond a large part of the
shell. The tower went, a new iron-and-glass roof was erected, and the principal block, comprising the former framing- and drying-rooms, was extended southwards as far as
Montpelier Square (Plate 54c). (ref. 81) The south extension followed the plain round-arched style of the factory; at the
north end, the main entrance was at the corner of a singlestorey wing, somewhat showier with stone dressings and
ball finials on the parapet. Replacing or converted from the
old floorcloth showroom, this building, latterly No. 243
Knightsbridge, contained a lounge, refreshment room and
offices. Two more storeys were later added. (ref. 82)
Although a 'brilliant success', the skating-club was put
up for sale in 1897, probably because of the difficulties over
licensing. But no buyer was found until 1903, when it was
purchased by the Duchess of Bedford – the future 'Flying
Duchess' was a keen skater and determined to keep the
place open. The building had already housed, in 1902, an
exhibition of Austrian art and furnishings, and a succession
of exhibitions and bazaars followed over the years leading
up to the First World War. (ref. 83) The Olympic winter sports
were held there in 1908, and in the following year it was
used for an exhibition by the Women's Political Union,
when the hall was decorated with purple, white and green
murals to Sylvia Pankhurst's designs. The rather cloying
blend of Pre-Raphaelite, Biblical and pagan symbolism,
with a female sower and angels as the centrepiece, was
heavily influenced by Walter Crane's socialist imagery. (ref. 84)
After the First World War the building became a car-hire
depot, and this it remained until its demolition in the mid1970s for the South Lodge redevelopment (see page 134). (ref. 85)