www.925-1000.com

Goldworkers List (Section VII).

There were two goldsmiths by the name of Samuel Hasluck:

Samuel Hasluck Senior.
He was born around 1785 in Birmingham.
The marriage of Samuel Hasluck and Hannah Smith dated 20th November 1815 is recorded in the St Andrew, Holborn register.
The christening on 27th October 1816 of a son Samuel is recorded at the same church. Samuel senior is noted in the church register as a goldsmith of Blewitts Buildings.
Further christenings of their children are recorded at the same church between 1818 and 1828. On each record Samuel senior is shown as a goldsmith at Kirby Street.
The 1851 UK Census records Samuel senior living at Hazelbrooke House in West Ham. His age is given as 65 years and his occupation as a house proprietor. Also resident were his wife Hannah aged 61 years and, amongst others, sons Frederick aged 31 years and Robert aged 28 years both merchants and goldsmiths.
The 1861 UK Census records him as a fund, house and land owner resident with his wife Hannah in West Ham. They employed two servants and a groom/gardener.
No Census records have so far been found for Samuel senior in 1841 or 1861.
The UK National Probate Calendar Index of Wills shows Samuel senior having died in West Ham on 29th January 1863. His Will was proved on 5th March 1863 at the Principal Registry. The value of the estate was under £30000.

Hasluck Family
The UK Census for 1841 records Samuel junior and Frederick at 104 Hatton Garden as jewellers with their brothers Robert and Lewis as apprentices.
Volume.I p.221 of the Directory of Gold and Silversmiths 1838-1914 by John Culme records Samuel junior, Frederick, Robert and Lewis as partners at 104 Hatton Garden until 1852 when Lewis left. He also records the partnership traded from Gibraltar
Because Samuel junior would have been only 16 years old the mark Grimwade recorded as entered in 1832 must relate Samuel Hasluck senior.
Volume II p.273 of Culme’s book records marks were registered in London by Samuel Hasluck in 1839, 1841, 1846 and 1847 but whether senior or junior isn’t entirely clear.

Samuel Hasluck Junior.
He was born in 1816.
No entry has been found for him in the UK Census records after 1841. At some time he was living in Gibraltar.
The UK National Probate Calendar Index of Wills shows Samuel junior, late of 104 Hatton Garden and Gibraltar, having died on 2nd October 1875 at 32 Myddleton Square, Clerkenwell. His Will was proved on 23rd October 1875 at the Principal Registry. The value of the estate was under £10000.

Frederick Hasluck.
He was born in 1819.
Culme’s book Vol. II p.90-1 records he registered marks by in London in 1848 and 1870(?).
The UK Census for 1861 records him as a merchant and goldsmith living at Baker Street, Enfield.
The National Probate Calendar Index of Wills shows he died on 10th February 1877 at Greenhill Park, Barnet. His Will was proved at the Principal Registry on 22nd June 1877. The value of the estate was under £7000.

Robert Hasluck.
He was born around 1823.
England and Wales Death Index for West Ham register shows he died in July 1853.

Lewis Hasluck.
He was born in 1824.
He appears on the 1861 UK Census as a farmer in Hampshire.
The 1871 UK Census records him as a working watch maker at 254 Tottenham Court Road, London.
The UK National Probate Calendar Index of Wills shows Lewis Hasluck, a watchmaker, died in October 1897 in Perth, West (sic) Australia. Limited Administration was granted at the Principal Registry on 15th June 1898. The value of the estate was £610.

1841 Samuel Hasluck born about 1786 is on Ilford(?) Road, West Ham, Essex listed as a master jeweler.

Hasluck Brothers - London - 1893

The advertisement that John Culme referred to in his biography of Hasluck Brothers.

A mention of Samuel Raphael Hasluck:

Yet another case of wanton assault by the police, followed by a false charge and perjury. This time Bow-street was the scene of action, and Mr. Vaughan the sitting magistrate. P. C. Leonard, 426 E, deposed that on Saturday, March 13, Charles Smith, a plasterer, created an obstruction in Great Queen-street, and assaulted him in the execution of his duty, whereupon he took Smith into custody. Police constable Dodge, 362 E, confirmed this statement. But Mr. Samuel Raphael Hasluck, manufacturer of jewellery, Hatton-garden, had been a disinterested spectator of the whole affair between Smith and the constables. In a praiseworthy manner he came forward in the interests of justice, and related to the magistrate what he had seen, and this was his version :-

He was in Great Queen-street, and his attention was called to a man in the middle of the road who was being kicked in the back by a constable. Other constables were there also, and two of them had gone towards a public-house where the prisoner was leaning against a window. “Get out of this,” said one constable, and Smith at once moved away. The two constables followed him, saying, “Go on, move off.” Said Smith : “I am going, if you will allow me.” Mr. Hasluck was on the point of speaking to an elderly constable, with a view of getting him to remonstrate with the other constables, when to his surprise the elderly officer said : “ Why don’t you have him in?" Thereupon the other constables tripped Smith up and kicked him in the back. Smith was then taken into custody, removed to the station, and charged with being drunk. The doctor of the force inspected Smith and said he was not drunk. After this evidence Mr. Vaughan referred the case to the Commissioners of Police “ for inquiry."

No impartial reader will doubt the evidence of a purely disinterested witness like Mr. Hasluck, who attends, at much inconvenience to himself, to further the interests of justice; and it is plain that we have here another case of wanton assault and perjury by the police. Reference to the Commissioners is totally inadequate to meet the requirements of a case of such enormity. Even if they discharge the officers, and cause them to forfeit all claims to pensions, such offenders get off much too cheaply. Such an offence deserves the heaviest sentence that the law admits of if the charge be brought home.

Source: The Truth - 25th March 1880