Link to Brentford High Street Project

Home and Search
Site Guide
Brentford Basics
Privacy Policy
Contact Families
Photos of people
Name indexes incl WW1
Lists, Documents, News
Occupations Properties: High Street
Properties: non-High Street
1909/10 Valuation Index
Pub Hub Seeking...
Mystery photos A-Z list History
Beach's Jam
Nowell Parr
Turner the Artist
Queen Victoria 1840
Brentford Market
80 High Street
Clitherow of Boston House
Four Croxford Brothers They Said
Books etc.
Web Links

Site Technology

Home and Search

Not Brentford

Magpie and Stump, Brentford

Vic Rosewarne has researched the histories of several local pubs and beerhouses including the Magpie and Stump at 124 High Street.

The origins of the Magpie and Stump

The following is a conjecture only, as it only based on the licensing records at the Metropolitan Archives, other sources may be able to confirm or deny this.

A public house named the Magpie and Plough was licensed in New Brentford from 1737 to 1768, and from 1770 it appears to be just called the Magpie. The name the Magpie and Stump first appears in the Licensed Victuallers returns for New Brentford in 1790, with licensee William Jones. However, William Jones had been the landlord of the Magpie, New Brentford from 1784 to 1787, so it can be assumed the name was changed at this time. Another factor is that new licences were rarely granted at this time. There was actually a decline in the number of houses in New Brentford from 17 in 1760 to 13 in 1800, and 10 by 1828.

Licensed Victuallers Returns, London Metropolitan Archives

The Magpie and Plough
1737 Thomas Currier
1743 Nicholas Langwill
1760 - 1763 Charles Ricketts
1764 Elizabeth Ricketts
1766 - 1767 William Cole
1768 Gilbert Smith

[There is no extant list for 1769]

The Magpie
1770 - 1774 Robert Smith
1775 - 1783 Henry Marsh
1784 - 1789 William Jones

The Magpie and Stump
1790 - 1800 William Jones
1801 - 1813 Thomas Chapman
1803 Thomas Parker
1815 Robert Powell
1816 John Sims
1817 - 1828 Thomas Pearson

Up until 1828 yearly returns of Licensed Victuallers were made by the Annual Licensing Sessions at Brentford to the Middlesex Magistrates at Clerkenwell. The Licensing Act of 1828 omitted this requirement, and as a result only three returns were made in 1861, 1882 and 1900.

The other main source for the licensees were the Census returns and Trade Directories. Details extracted for The Magpie and Stump follow in chronological order.

1826 Thomas Pearson Pigot's Directory

Palmer - by 1839 to c 1853/4/5

1839 Thomas Palmer Pigot's Middlesex Directory

1851 Census (HO 107 1699, fo. 38, p. 25, Sch. 103)

William R. Palmer Head Mar. 27 Publican Middlesex, Hanworth
Ann Palmer Wife Mar. 25 Middlesex, Brentford
William Palmer Son 1 Middlesex, Brentford
Ann Palmer Dau. 5mo. Middlesex, Brentford
Frances Wiggins Servant Unm. 16 House Servant Hants., Alton
James Cole Servant Unm. 55 General Servant Middlesex, Brentford

1852 Wm. Rolfe Palmer Kelly's 1852 Middlesex Directory
1853 William Rolfe Palmer Mason's 1853 Directory

Franklin c 1853/4/5 - March 1860

1855 William Franklin Kelly's 1855 Middlesex Directory

Morning Advertiser 8 March 1860 & Windsor & Eton Express 10 March 1860:

The Magpie and Stump, New Brentford, from Martha (or Maria) Franklin to Mr. Alfred Dean.

Frederick Dean March 1860 - Aug 1862

1861 Frederick Dean Licensed Victuallers Returns

James Grover Aug 1862 to 1873/4

Buckinghamshire Advertiser 25 March 1865:

This being the Adjourned Licensing Day, those applications which stood over from the previous Tuesday week from various causes were next taken.

Magpie and Stump, New Brentford

William Atkins, the Magpie and Stump, New Brentford. In this case there was one complaint during the year; but as the fine inflicted was 40s., the Bench made themselves acquainted with the facts, under which it occurred, and finding it was not a very serious offence, admonished the applicant, and renewed the license.

1871 Census
RG 10 1319, fo. 158, p. 8, sch, 37

High Street, New Brentford
Age Occupation Birth Place
James Grover Head Mar. 41 Publican Middx., Ealing
Frances Grover Wife Mar. 41 Middx., Hanwell
Florence Grover Dau. Unm. 18 Middx., Hanwell
Kate E. Grover Dau. Unm. 16 Middx., Brentford
Harriett Octdel ? Serv. Unm. 22 Genl. Servant Middx., Islington
Henry Brooks Visitor Unm. 26 Lighterman Middx., Brentford

Kelly 1873 Directory Jas. Grover, Magpie and Stump, High St., New Brentford

James Gasset 1873/4 to Nov 1874

Morning Advertiser 10 November 1874:

Magpie and Stump, High Street, New Brentford, James Gasset to William Simmons.


William Simmons Nov 1874 - Apr 1889

Middlesex Chronicle 15 April 1876:

Before J. R. Hogarth Esq, in the Chair and F. Ashton Esq.


John Stuart and Thomas Bryant, privates belonging to the 4th Royal South West Middlesex Militia, stationed at Hounslow, were charged with riotous conduct at the Magpie and Stump Inn, New Brentford, and also with violently assaulting Mr. William Simmons, the landlord, on the 8th inst.

Mr. William Simmons said on Saturday night last about 10 o'clock the two defendants and some other members of the same regiment were in his house drinking, and after having two or three pots of beer they wanted more, but witness considering they had had sufficient refused to serve them, and told them the best thing they could do was go home quietly. On of the party replied with an oath, "isn't our money as good as other peoples." He made answer that it was, but he considered they had had enough and would not serve them with any more. The defendant Bryant then caught up a pewter pint pot and attempted to strike him with it saying "I'll knock your b---- brains out if you don't serve us," but a customer named Hubbard went up to defendant and snatched the pot away, and then the defendant Stuart and two other militiamen rushed at witness threw him down in the passage, and the two defendants kicked him, one injuring his arm and the other inflicting an injury to his thumb. Witness called out for help and several other customers came out of the parlour and assisted him, or otherwise he, undoubtedly, would have been severely injured if not killed. The defendants were afterwards given into custody, but the rest of the militiamen made their escape, however, witness was under the impression that he could identify another man who assaulted him if he went to the barracks.

William Hubbard deposed to snatching the pot from the defendant Stuart's hand, and stated that in the scuffle which ensued he was knocked down and kicked in the stomach by some of the militiamen. He also saw the landlord on the floor, being at the time brutally used by the defendants and others.

John Taylor said he was in the parlour of the Magpie and Stump, on Saturday night when he heard a scuffle going on in the passage, and almost immediately afterwards cries for help were raised, and he wnet out and found the defendants beating and kicking the landlord, and he at once assisted to secure the defendants, and the police were sent for.

Police constable 434 T., said from information received on Saturday night he went to the Magpie and Stump Inn, and found several militiamen fighting with civilians, and the defendants were given into his custody for assaulting the landlord, but others made their escape.

The magistrates looked upon the conduct of the militiamen as most disgraceful, and sentenced each defendant to one month's imprisonment with hard labour.

* * * * * * * *

Middlesex Chronicle 1 February 1879:

Henry Hogden a powerful young fellow, was charged with refusing to quit the Magpie and Stump, also with assaulting the police whilst in the execution of their duty, and was sentenced to six month's imprisonment.

* * * * * * * *


1881 Census
RG 11 1349, fo. 81, p. 8, sch. 39

124 High Street, New Brentford
Age Occupation Birth Place
William Simmons Head Mar. 58 Licensed Victualler Middx., Brentford
Sarah L. Simmons Wife Mar. 54 Kent, Offham
Mary Simmons Dau. Unm. 29 Cook Middx., Brentford
James Simmons Son Unm. 26 Whitesmith Middx., Brentford
Page 9
(Magpie and Stump) Sarah Simmons Dau. Unm. 22 Barmaid Middx., Brentford
James Couder Boarder Unm. 42 Carter Surrey, Guildford
William Rich Boarder Widr. 65 Pewterer Gloucesters., Bristol
Chas. Edmunds Serv. Unm. 17 Potman Dorset, West Bourton

[The name of the pub is given, in brackets on the second page.]

1882 William Simmons Licensed Victuallers Return

Middlesex Chronicle 13 April 1889:

Magpie and Stump, New Brentford, from W. Simmons to Edward Henry Fielder.

Edward Henry Fielder Apr 1889 - pre 1900

1891 Census
124 High Street, New Brentford

RG 12 1032, fo. 136, p. 6, sch. 39
Age Occupation Birth Place
Edward H. Fielder Head M. 38 Licensed Victualler Middlesex, Brentford
Mary A Fielder Wife M. 37 Middlesex, St. Margaret's, Westminster
Ellen R. Fielder Dau. 14 Middlesex, Brentford
Edward H. Fielder Son 12 Scholar Middlesex, Brentford
William F. Fielder Son 11 Scholar Middlesex, Brentford
Florence Fielder Dau. 8 Scholar Middlesex, Brentford
Albert J. Fielder Son 7 Scholar Middlesex, Brentford
Alice M. Fielder Dau. 5 Middlesex, Brentford
Lillian M. Fielder Dau. 3 Middlesex, Brentford
Victor A. Fielder Son 1 Middlesex, Brentford
Hannah Smith Serv. 18 Dom. General Servant Middlesex, Brentford

George Hopkins - by 1900 to Feb 1902

1900 George Hopkins Licensed Victuallers Return

George Oliver Hutchinson - Feb 1902 to 1906

February 1902 Licence transferred to George Oliver Hutchinson  
1902 - 1906 Charles Oliver Hutchinson  


In 1904 an Act of Parliament was passed that allowed for the closure of Public Houses and Beer House where it was considered there were too many licensed houses in one area. At the Annual Licensing Sessions for Brentford in 1905 the Licensing Magistrates considered the case for the closure of seven houses in the Division under the new Act. At these sessions Montague Sharpe, the Chairman of the Licensing Magistrates spoke of the need for closures in the Brentford Division.

Middlesex Chronicle 11 February 1905:

As regards the New Act, it had been said more than once that it was not so necessary in a town like Brentford as it was in districts where the population was small, but where from contiguity to old coaching roads the number of houses was large. There were no applications to the Bench for seven years licenses, and he might say the view of the Bench was that if some big works were going on, such as building a dock or a railway, they might grant such a licence to terminate when the works were concluded.

The Bench had taken a great deal of pains in finding out how to deal with the number of houses in the Division. They were of the opinion that 60 or 70 were not required. Taking the minimum standard of Lord Peel, they thought no one would say that this number was large or that a drastic movement was being carried out. The list was being prepared; at one end would be put in a number of houses to be dealt with in order of emergency, and at the other the houses that they hoped to reduce by surrender. As regards this list it was not to be a hard and fast and permanent one. They would be prepared to meet the owners of houses in many districts, to consider and go through the list, and modify it or re-arrange it so as to avoid friction.

On the other hand they considered that after the list was published, brewers would know what houses they could spend money on. They would consider also the number of houses in which refreshments were sold other than strong drink. The Bench were actuated in their views of the necessity of reduction by a close consideration of what applied elsewhere. In Willesden there was one licence to 786 of the population, In Highgate one to 643, in Edmonton one to 633, and in Brentford one to 397, and this was exclusive of the trade in stone jars and the clubs.

That showed where the congestion was. Furthermore, in Brentford there were thirty eight houses which within a quarter mile radius had twenty other houses, whilst in Heston, Isleworth and Twickenham there were 15 such premises. He had heard it said that it was not the number of public houses which caused drunkenness, but with that he differed entirely. Comparing Brentford with Norwood, two districts which were fairly similar, he found that in the former, there were 127 convictions, 54 residents, 73 strangers, and in the latter 24 convictions, 17 strangers and 7 residents. That appeared to him conclusive evidence that where there were the most public houses there was also the most drunkenness.

The Bench intended to select eight houses to send up to the Westminster Committee as fit for abolition, and he publicly notified that they were:-

  • The Waterman's Hall, Brentford
  • The Angel, Twickenham
  • The Magpie and Stump, Brentford
  • The Duke of Edinburgh, Hounslow
  • The Queen's Head, Twickenham
  • The Prince of Wales, Brentford
  • The Bell, Isleworth
  • The Lord Nelson, Brentford.

These would be dealt with on the 21st inst.


Middlesex Chronicle 25 Feb. & TVT 22 February 1905:


The Adjourned Licensing Sessions took place at Brentford on Tuesday, the magistrates present being Mr. Montague Sharpe (chairman), Mr. A.S. Montgomery, Mr. G.J. Haffenden, Mr. G.W. Barber, Mr. V. Griffiths, Mr. J. Carver, Mr. A. Bilbrough, Mr. W. Bradley, and Mr. H.C. Green.

There was a large attendance of brewers and others interested, the business being the consideration of the eight houses selected by the Justices to be recommended to Quarter Sessions for abolition as unnecessary.


The first case dealt with was the objection of the renewal of the licence of the Magpie and Stump, High Street, Brentford. Mr. Hammond Chambers appeared for the tenant, Mr. Hutchinson. The former asked formally to renew the licence, and expressed the idea that the practice to be followed should be that at Quarter Sessions, when the evidence of objections was heard, and then evidence called for the applicant, and counsel heard in support.

After some remarks in support by other legal gentlemen in court, the Bench agreed to adopt this practice. In this case Mr. Hammond Chambers pointed out that this house had always been conducted well and with regard to the alterations, the owners were prepared to do all that was necessary in the way of alterations. The Chairman said it would take a good deal of money. - Mr. Chambers said he could bring evidence to rebut the suggestion that the house was not necessary. The Chairman said the real fight would be before Quarter Sessions, they could not settle the point now. Mr. Chambers contended that unless there was evidence to the contrary a license should be renewed. - The Chairman , after conferring with Mr. Woodcock and Mr. Grain, said that in each case the Bench would produce their own evidence.

Evidence was then given by Mr. H. Pittard, the assistant clerk, produced a report upon the character of the house, its position in the High Street, and the number of licensed premises adjoining. Mr. Sidney A. Barnes, the surveyor, produced and read his report upon the structural features of the house, and interior state. Mr. Hammond Chambers objected to its terms. The witness ought to confine his evidence only contained in the notice to the tenant, which were that the fully-licensed house was not required at the spot at which it was situated, and that having regard to the character and interests of the neighbourhood, the licence held by the tenant was unnecessary. The evidence as to structural wrongs was quite ultra vires.

The Chairman ruled that the evidence was necessary. It would bear on the point of compensation when Quarter Sessions gave its decision.

Inspector Wettone also described the house and the arrangement of rooms. It was a house easily managed, and easy to supervise, but the district was not on the increase.

Mr. Chambers called Mr. Wotton, a clerk in the accountant's department of the Isleworth Brewery, who handed into the hands of the Bench an abstract from the company's books, showing the amount of trade done at the house in question.

The tenant Mt. Hutchinson, deposed that he had been in the house several years, and was making a very good living in it.. In his opinion it was wanted in the neighbourhood. He was a tenant subject to a month's notice, but that would only be enforced if he contravened the licensing laws.

Mr. Chambers argued that there was no direct evidence given in support of the notices. No one had said these were necessary, whilst on the other side, that he was doing a really good trade. It was nor a derelict house, and the figures before the court would show it evidently satisfied a need.

The Bench decided to recommend the licence to the committee of Quarter Sessions for further consideration.

* * * * * * *


[The following details come from the Minute Book of the County Licensing Committee, acting as the Compensation Authority - Metropolitan Archives Ref. - MXS/D/01/03/004]

County Licensing Committee Minute Book 1902 -1906

Brentford Division

List of Licences referred to the Renewal Authority Licensing District of Brentford, to the Compensation Authority for the area comprising the above District.

At the Adjourned General Annual Licensing Meeting holden at the Town Hall, Brentford, on the 21st day of February, and the 5th March 1905, for the above named Licensing District, we, being the Renewal Authority for the said district, decided to refer to you under Section 1 of the Licensing Act 1904, the question of the renewal of the licences held in regards of the premises specified below.


REPORT No. 2, 1905

In connection with the question so referred we report as follows :--

Brentford Division

"Magpie and Stump," Alehouse Chas. Oliver Isleworth Brewery Ltd.
High Street, Hutchinson
New Brentford
Magpie and Stump (Alehouse)
High Street, New Brentford

Population 2,016; Public House User Population* 1,240; Acreage 217

Licences - Ale 9; Beer on 7; Beer Off 1; Grocers' 3; Total 20; Clubs 0.

This is an Alehouse, the licence of which was transferred to Charles Oliver Hutchinson in February 1902; it is tied to the Isleworth Brewery Company, the owners.

Four previous persons have held the licence since 1872, and there is no convictions against them.

The rent is £36. The gross rateable value £36 and the net £30.

Bread and cheese is supplied.

A Slate club meets here.

There are no lodgers and the stabling is not used.

The working class use the house, which is not much affected by holiday traffic.

The house is situate on the south side of the main road, it is almost opposite the Brentford Town Hall, with a frontage of feet, and . Back towards the docks with a depth of . Feet.

The premises are very old and generally in a bad state of repair, the rooms used both by the public and the public and the occupiers are very low and there are no sanitary convenience inside the house.

The accompany map of the Division more particularly shows the situation.

Within a quarter-mile radius the following licensed premises are situated, viz. :--

Three Pigeons 10 yards Magpie and Crown 17 yards
Waterman's Arms 107 " Six Bells 182 "
George and Dragon 357 " Red Lion 50 "
White Horse 110 " Castle 113 "
Catherine Wheel 183 Black Boy and Still 208 "
Beehive 250 Feathers 273 "
Seven Stars 433   

Magnet 200 yards Northumberland Arms 300 yards
Lord Nelson 210 " Waterman's Arms 208 "
Barley Corn 157 " Duke of Cambridge 383 "
Brewery Tap 302 " The Harp 513 "
Junction Arms 200 "  

186 High Street 57 yards 120 High Street 23 yards


The two nearest licensed houses are :--
Three Pigeons 10 yards
Magpie and Crown 17 yards

Signed on behalf of the Renewal Authority
Geo. Brodie Clark
Clerk of the Renewal Authority
Date 31st March 1905

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

County Licensing Committee Minute Book 17th June 1905:
Brentford Division

"Magpie and Stump," Alehouse Chas. Oliver Isleworth Brewery Ltd. High Street, Hutchinson New Brentford

The Licensee was not represented.

Mr. Skewes-Cox the Chairman of the Isleworth Brewery Company appeared on behalf of the owners.

Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared on behalf of the Brentford Justices.

Mr. Skewes-Cox stated that it was not proposed to contest the question of renewal, the only question being that of the amount of the compensation.

The Committee refused the renewal of the Licence.

It was arranged that particulars of any amount agreed upon between the parties should be lodged 14 days before the supplemental meeting.

* * * * * * * *


Compensation Authority Records - London Metropolitan Archives - MXS/D/01/03/004:


Report from Alex Stenning
21 Cannon Street, London E.C.
20 July 1905

Dear Sir
Licensing Act 1904

In accordance with your instructions I have inspected the following houses, of which you sent me particulars, viz :

The Angel, Twickenham
The Watermans Arms, Church St., Staines
The Lord Nelson, Brentford
The Magpie & Stump, New Brentford

The first three houses are Beer Houses and the last a fully licensed House.

The "Magpie & Stump, New Brentford -
This is a fully licensed House and a Claim has been made on behalf of the Freeholder for £5245. 10. 0. and on behalf of the Tenant £447. 18. 2. These appear to me to be large Claims, but I have not yet seen the Valuers.

I do not consider I have had sufficient time to go into all the details, and as they are the first cases arising under the Licensing Act they require to be carefully dealt with as they may establish precedents for dealing with Houses in future.

I think therefore that it would be much better if an arrangement could be made for an extension of time, as it is possible that by negotiation the Claimants will reduce their present Claims to reasonable figures.

Yours faithfully
(Sign.) Alex R. Stenning

* * * * * * * *

July 21st 1905
Licensing Act 1904

Claims are made by the Brewers on the basis of 15 years purchase for Freeholds on the Barrelage sold at the House and in addition the Tenants claim has to be considered. Claims are made for the interest from 1 to 2 years.

In the case of the "Magpie & Stump" a fully licensed House. -

The Claim is first made on the Barrelage &c. supplied by the Brewery. Then a claim is made on the supposition that the Brewery carries on the business by the aid of a manager and it is on the assumed profit that might be made, but is not made at the present time, but if the Tenant had a lease he would be entitled to have his interest purchased on the 10% basis but there being no lease this claim does not come in and therefore in not paid out of the Compensation Fund.

Advise 10% or ten years purchase on the Brewer's profits to be divided between Freeholder and Lessees.

Tenants interest in addition.

If above terms not agreed to then to go to the Inland Revenue.

In all cases the return as to the barrelage and profits require examination and checking.

* * * * * * * *

Report from Alex Stenning
21 Cannon Street, London E.C.
16 Oct. 1905

Licensing Act 1904

Referring to my previous Report dated 20 July 1905. I have been in negotiations with the Agents representing the different persons interested, and have to report a follows:-

The "Magpie & Stump" New Brentford

The Claims in this case amount to £5693 8. 2. Apportioned as follows :-
Freehold Interest      £5245. 10. 0.
Tenants       449. 18. 2.

My Valuation of these Interests amount to £2900 viz. :-
Freehold Interest      £2500
Tenants      £ 400

I have received intimations that these amounts would be accepted.

In my Valuation, no allowance has been made for any Costs incurred by the interested Parties in connection with the Claims.

Yours faithfully
Alex R. Stenning

The Clerk
To the County Licensing Committee, Guildhall, Westminster S.W.

* * * * * * * *

Report from Alex Stenning Jany. 12th 1906

Middlesex County Licensing Committee

Licensing Act 1904

Alex. R.
"Magpie & Stump," New Brentford
Freeholder (Isleworth Brewery)
Tenant (Mr. Hutchinson)
£5,245 10 0
£447 18 2
£5,693 8 2

The house would have been closed on the payment of the Compensation Money, probably shortly after the above report.


Page published August 2017