Clocktime Edward East

This site requires javascript.
Please enable javascript and refresh the page.

Edward East

Edward East is one of the most successful and celebrated London clockmakers of the 1600s.[1] The longest lived of his fellow London makers featured on Clocktime, he was a shrewd businessman and brilliantly talented artisan who earned the regard and patronage of two kings over time. Yet, despite being a Royalist, he also successfully navigated the political and economic instability of the English Civil Wars and Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth and managed to thrive and prosper, all the while building the East clockmaking dynasty. He was also one of the very few Londoners to serve as Master of two guilds. East was born on 22 August 1602 and baptised the same year in Southill, Bedfordshire. He was probably well-educated, and, when he came of age, his father John dutifully arranged for his son to begin his guild training in London (as he did for all his sons). Edward’s apprenticeship contract began on 9 May 1617 under the Master Robert Podmore of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths – the London guild associated with gold and silversmithing. Then, on 27 March 1618, he was apprenticed to Richard Rogers through the Goldsmiths’ Company. Rogers lived and worked on Fleet Street, a centre of commerce where many famous clock- and watchmakers of the day had set up shop. It was in this bustling workshop environment that Edward learned how to work different metals and trained in specialist skills, such as engraving and ornamentation. He also met one of the leading London watchmakers, Edmund Bull (b. 1585, d. 1622). At some point, East may have entered into an apprenticeship with Bull, as there is evidence that the young clockmaker travelled with Bull on a business trip to Holland during this time. [2] Upon completing his training as a goldsmith, East was made a Free Brother in 1626–1627.

An auspicious marriage

By the time East became a Free Brother in 1627, he had accumulated sufficient funds to act as a banker and had married into an established clockmaking family.[3] His new wife, Anne Bull, was the daughter of clockmaker Edmund Bull, who probably took an interest in East while the young talented clockmaker was still an apprentice, as mentioned above. The Bull family clockmaking business, which had started in the 1570s, had already produced two royal clock makers.[4] Anne’s father, Edmund, had been apprenticed in the Blacksmiths’ Company to Robert Grinkin Senior around 1600, and was admitted to the Freedom of that Company in 1608. Bull was a prosperous businessman, running clockmaking workshops within the City of London as well as outside its jurisdiction in Ram Alley, just off Fleet Street. Bull was the ideal mentor for East, as he certainly knew how to work around regulations while using the City and its resources to his advantage. The location of the Bull-East Ram Alley workshop was certainly strategic. Ram Alley was a tiny alley, just seven feet wide, that ran south of Fleet Street, opposite Fetter Lane.[5] During the 16- and 1700s, it was a rough place, ‘inhabited chiefly by crooks, bawds, tobacco-sellers and ale-house keepers’,[6] and is described by Walter George Bell as being ‘of evil association, perhaps the most pestilent court in London’.[7] This is because Ram Alley was a place of sanctuary; any activity that took place there was unregulated, and anyone on the alley could claim immunity and enjoy freedom from arrest. Thus, the Bull family and their new overseer, East, could employ foreign workers and run the family business without interference, steering clear of regulation from the various guilds. By 1628, East was promoted to overseer of the Bull family workshop in Ram Alley, where he seems to have managed manufacturing operations on a large scale. Clearly, the ambitious young journeyman was an astute businessman from the start, and his choice of wife benefitted his professional career.

East and the Clockmakers

In 1622, Bull and Grinkin were signatory on the first Clockmakers’ petition submitted to King James VI and I. The petition was not successful, and clockmaking in London continued to be unregulated. Then, roughly a decade later, in 1631, The Worshipful Company of Clockmakers was successfully chartered. While the new guild regulated the clockmaking market to the advantage of the London clockmakers, it also hamstringed their business by obliging them to pay dues and follow certain regulations in exchange for freedom to conduct business in the city. Although East was a founding member and, in 1632, became the youngest of the ten original Assistants in the Company, he was not exactly eager to take on responsibility for the guild. It is likely that Bull encouraged East to join the newly incorporated guild for practical reasons. By then, East was running the Ram Alley workshop, employing the very foreigners the company was trying to control. Perhaps Bull was being practical; he probably thought that scrutiny could be avoided if he had family within the new guild’s ranks. As it happens, Bull’s reasoning was sound, as non-member clockmakers such as Ahasuerus Fromanteel constantly ran afoul of the Company, while East flourished, virtually unchecked by the guild’s regulations. It appears that East, like Bull, knew how to work the system. As his influence and control grew, he rose through the ranks of the Company, being appointed Warden in 1638 and Master in 1645 and again during Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth in 1653. East was also the only original Assistant surviving when the grant of arms was issued to the Clockmakers’ Company in 1671. Through the Clockmakers’ Company, East had eight apprentices between 1643 and 1676. One of these was Henry Jones. Jones was initially apprenticed to Benjamin Hill in 1654 but was turned over to East that year. After Jones was freed in 1663, he continued to work for East until around 1672–1673, after which he became a successful clockmaker in his own right, working independently at the Inner Temple. Throughout his career, East never gave up his involvement with the more influential Goldsmiths’ Company, whose influence and financial connections certainly contributed to his continued success through the instability of the English Civil Wars (1642–1651), the years of the Commonwealth of England (1649–1660), and the Restoration of the Stuart monarchy (1660).

1630–1649: Royal patronage, early works, and a highly unusual collaboration

On becoming King of England and Scotland on 27 March 1625, Charles I inherited the royal appointments of his father, King James VI and I. Among these were the position of Chief Clockmaker, which was held by the Scot David Ramsay. Predictably, the new king was eager to replace his father’s royal appointments with men of his own age, many of whom were in his entourage while he was Prince. In 1625, he promptly appointed the clockmaker Thomas Caesar as his Royal Clockmaker.[8] Yet by 1630, Charles had gradually transferred his horological patronage to East.[9] The reign of Charles I from 1625 to 1649 was a prolific period for East. He produced many fine works – clocks and watches that were as beautiful as they were technically innovative. One of his earliest surviving works is also one of his most refined. Around 1635, East produced the pristine Miniature Rock Crystal Watch.[10] Beautifully crafted with exceptional skill, this tiny watch features detailed engravings and a finely cut elliptical rock crystal case that epitomises luxury. Attached to a chain by its pendant setting and worn around the neck or waist, it must have been a watch intended for an aristocratic lady. Sometime between 1630 and 1645, East also produced a silver, blued-steel watch that is believed to have belonged to King Charles I. The watch, which is part of the Royal Collection Trust (RCIN 63739), was eventually presented to Queen Elizabeth II as a gift. Other watches from East’s early period include several watches that are now at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. There is the gourd-shaped rock crystal-cased watch with verge escapement, made around 1635 (Accession Number M.360-1927), and the gilt watch with painted enamel case and dial, made around 1640 (Accession Number 14-888). There is also the engraved and pierced-silver watch, made around 1640 (Accession Number 200-1908), and the striking clock-watch with alarm, made around 1645 (Accession Number M.64:1, 2-1952). The Metropolitan Museum of Art also has three East watches from this period. There is the pierced-gilt engraved watch, made sometime between 1640 and 1650 (Accession Number: 17.190.1555); the plain silver-cased watch with silver dial, made around 1640 (Accession Number: 17.190.1468a, b); and the silver clock-watch made sometime during the 1600s (Accession Number: 17.190.1467a, b). East also produced exquisite clocks. Among these is the flawless circular horizontal drum table clock with alarm, made around 1640 (coming soon to Clocktime).[11] Its case is the size of a large watch. Its drum has a replaced pierced and engraved silver floral band while its four silver hoof feet are original. The gilt floral engraved centre of the dial rotates, with the fleur-de-lis functioning as the hour hand. To improve its timekeeping, the clock’s original inertial balance wheel was replaced at some point with a hair spring and a Tompion-type silver disc adjustment system. Around 1640, an unusual collaboration developed. Together, East and clockmaker Ahasuerus Fromanteel produced the stunning Gilt and Silver Table Clock – a horological masterpiece. This timepiece is momentous for several reasons. The case of the clock is a work of art, and its movement is a masterpiece. It is also the earliest known English grande sonnerie clock and is one of the first clocks to have a minute hand. Additionally, it is an experimental clock; its hour hand takes a full three hours to make one rotation around its beautifully silvered traditional chapter ring, thus a bit of calculation is required to read the time. And finally, the clock is the only known instance of a collaboration between East and Fromanteel. This clock is remarkable because free clockmakers rarely collaborated. Why East and Fromanteel worked together on this job is a mystery, and little is known about the particulars of their business arrangement or the nature of their professional relationship. There seems to be consensus among horologists that Fromanteel oversaw the making of the movement, but East’s role in the clock’s making is less clear. The way in which the signatures were engraved may provide some insight into the collaboration between the two men. East’s name was engraved before the movement was gilded, while Fromanteel’s signature, which includes ‘fecit’, pierces the gilding and was engraved after. Horologists Percy Dawson and Dr John C. Taylor agree that Fromanteel’s use of the word fecit lays claim to the making of the movement, a movement that is typical of Fromanteel’s work. They also agree that the presence of East’s signature suggests that he wished to claim credit for the whole of the clock. Some have conjectured that the signatures were engraved as they were because the two makers began to work on the clock together but fell out. This is a tantalising scenario, but one for which there is no direct evidence. Dawson argues that East was probably responsible for the decorative work on the case and observes that ‘the piercing of the dial follows closely that on watches signed by him’. However, Taylor thinks that East probably had nothing to do with the making of the clock and offers another plausible scenario for why East felt comfortable signing the clock. He explains,

At the time, East was Master of the Clockmakers’ Company and Fromanteel was not yet a free of the Company. This means that Fromanteel was officially unable to sign his own work. East probably exploited his status as the Master of the Company and signed the clock as he did because he could, whilst Fromanteel was debarred from signing his own work. However, in c1656, (Oliver) Cromwell bought a clock from Fromanteel for £300 and intervened with the Clockmakers Company and forced them to promote Fromanteel as a Free Brother. When the clock was returned to Fromanteel for service, perhaps he then signed his own signature, cutting through the gilding.

The fact that East used his position and influence in other similar ways adds credence to the above scenario. In their workshops outside the jurisdiction of the Clockmakers’ Company, both East and Fromanteel employed immigrant Huguenot workers (as did the Scot David Ramsay before them) – an activity that the Charter of the Clockmakers’ Company was intended to prevent. Yet, the Clockmakers tended to turn a blind eye to East’s activities due to his status within the Company first as a Warden and later as twice Master. By contrast, the Court of the Company hounded Freemen of the Company, such as Fromanteel, for this violation. In 1658, Fromanteel was even summoned by the Company for having signed up more apprentices than was permitted. There have been questions over the dating of the East and Fromanteel gilt cubic table clock, with previous assessments suggesting that it belongs to a later period, during 1660s after the Restoration of Charles II. It was recently reassessed by Dr Taylor and dated to around 1640. He argues for this earlier date for two reasons: the clock’s decadence, and its lack of a pendulum. Speaking to the first reason, the clock, with its expensive cast-metal mounts and decorations, would have been prohibitively costly to produce during the years of civil war and the Interregnum. Charles I had exacted crippling fees on the City and its guilds to provide funding for his wars. Also, metal was extremely hard to come by, as there was an assaying of plate (i.e. the recalling and melting down of objects, including currency, made of gold, silver and other metals). If the clock had been made during the 1650s, it surely would not have survived, because it would have been melted down for this purpose. What is more, during the 1660s, despite the return of the monarchy and its systems of royal patronage, London was still recovering from the economic austerity of the Commonwealth and dealing with the aftermath of the Great Plague and the Great Fire. For example, there was a shortage of brass after the Great Fire that greatly affected the clockmakers’ business. However, the clock’s lack of a pendulum is an even more compelling reason to date it earlier. The domestic pendulum clock was invented in 1656, and Fromanteel in particular adopted and began exclusively producing pendulum clocks as early as 1658, based on his advertisement in the Commonwealth Mercury newspaper in November of that year. East was not far behind him in adopting and refining the new technology. It defies logic that East and Fromanteel would create such a luxurious, high-specification, grande sonnerie clock and revert it to an old pre-pendulum form by using an early balance wheel – an older technology that was far less accurate. Thus, it is much more likely that the clock was made around 1640, before the invention of the domestic pendulum clock as well as the disruption and austerity of the 1650s and 60s.

1642–1660: Not exactly a Royalist

As the favourite clockmaker of Charles I, it is often assumed that East was an ardent Royalist. The reality was much more complex. First and foremost, he was a businessman who prioritised success over political ideologies, in effect practising real politik. Therefore, his politics, which were fluid, served his practical business interests. When Edmund Bull died in 1644, East became the primary clockmaker in Fleet Street. Within a year, he would become Master of the Clockmakers’ Company for the first time. He was also becoming prominent in the Goldsmiths’ Company. The period leading up to the English Civil Wars was disastrous for both these Companies, as they were greatly affected by the assaying of plate (mentioned above) that took place.[12] Antiquarian Johnny Carter observes that

the clockmakers must have been even harder hit than the plate-workers; in hard times they could realise the value in their precious metal stock, but not so the clockmakers.

East certainly felt the effect of this, and, having been made Treasurer of the Clockmakers’ Company in 1647, he knew the extent to which the Crown’s fees and the ensuing political and economic instability wrought havoc upon the guilds and their makers. However, in contrast to Fromanteel who publicly aligned himself with Cromwell, East played his cards close to his chest.[13] The Goldsmiths’ were key financiers of the Roundhead army, investing over £17,000 towards the Parliamentarian cause.[14] Despite his royal patronage, there is no evidence that East objected to this. In fact, we know that he quietly supported the Roundheads; apparently, he later took ownership of a property in West Meath, Ireland, in repayment for a personal loan to Cromwell’s army. Work that East completed during these tumultuous times include an alarm watch commissioned by Charles I.[15] It was made in the winter of 1648–1649 while the King was awaiting trial for treason. Although it was dispatched via the Earl of Pembroke on 17 January 1649, it apparently went missing before it could be delivered. By the time of his trial three days later, the watch could not be traced, and the King remarked

Ah! Had he not told the officer it was for me, it would have probably been delivered: he well knew how short a time I would enjoy it.

Charles I was executed for treason on 30th January 1649. During the Commonwealth period (1649–1660), East prospered conspicuously. He now controlled Edmund Bull’s premises, the Ram Alley workshop, and le Musical Clock in Fleet Street. He had also acquired a tenement and shop in St Clement Danes (on what is now the Strand in London). Works that he produced during the Interregnum include a few timepieces now in the Science Museum’s Worshipful Company of Clockmakers Collection in London. There is the oval-shaped silver Puritan watch made in 1640 (Object Number: L2015-3100), and the gold watch with champlevé enamel dial that he made in 1650 (Object Number: L2015-3105). A travelling coach watch (Object Number: L2015-3467) made sometime between 1640 and 1660 might have been manufactured during this period as well. There is also the quarter-striking clock-watch with alarm made by East between 1655 and 1665 at the British Museum (Museum number 1958,1201.2246). In 1653, East became Master of the Clockmakers’ Company for the second time, and by 1657 he was made 4th Warden of the Goldsmiths. To fulfil his duties, he expanded, acquiring several managers, all of whom worked under his direction. We know his brothers, James and Jeremy (who were by now jointly running the Ram Alley workshop) and his son, also James, were among these managers. There was also a small army of journeyman and apprentices under East’s command. In 1671, East was appointed as Prime Warden of the Goldsmiths’ Company – their equivalent of Master.[16] He is one of only a handful of Londoners to be appointed Master of two guilds. His influence would have been ubiquitous throughout the City. Not only did East’s business survive the political and economic instability brought on by the English Civil Wars (1642–1646) and the Interregnum (1649–1660), but he stayed in London through the entire period, expanding his business and taking full advantage of opportunities.

The East school of clockmaking

During this time, horological technology underwent a period of significant development, in which East was a major player. As mentioned above, in 1658, Fromanteel had pioneered the introduction of the pendulum domestic clock in London, gaining a serious but brief advantage over his competitors. By the early 1660s, East and other London makers were also producing pendulum clocks. In turn, these makers experimented with and refined their designs as they strove to deliver more accurate clocks for less costs up front. This drive to innovate and increase profit produced two competing schools of pendulum clock design: the Fromanteel school and the East school. Within a few short years, by 1665, the ‘East school’ had caught up technically with the ‘Fromanteel school’, with East producing clocks of near-equal refinement to Fromanteel’s.[17] Dr Taylor explains that ‘the “East School” spring table clocks are built on fundamentally different principles to those of Fromanteel – the backplates are pinned on, the pillars are of asymmetric baluster form and rivetted onto the frontplate.’[18] Also, the backplate is fixed with taper pins. Further, East School clocks have no centre wheel, nor is there an arbor used by the minute hand. Thus, the motion work enabling the hour and minute hands has a ‘loose feel’.[19] Also, the East school generally used the flag-on-chain system, while the ‘Fromanteel school’ favoured the twin-disc system.[20] East also used indigenous English cabinet-makers, who interpreted but did not slavishly follow the architecturally informed lines of Fromanteel’s cases (many of Fromanteel's cases were probably designed by the highly regarded English architect John Webb and made by foreign workers). Carter observes that East’s ebony architectural striking table clock on a turntable base, made around 1661 (coming soon to Clocktime) ‘personifies’ this difference because the case ‘is markedly less pure architecturally’ than any of Fromanteel’s cases.[21]

The 1660s: Charles II’s Royal Clockmaker

Upon the Restoration of King Charles II in 1660, East moved seamlessly into the prestigious role of Royal Horologist to the King. On 15 November 1660, a letters patent was issued that made his post official.[22] East was under contract for 12d per day and £3 6s 8d for livery. Although this was not a lucrative position, it bestowed royal approval upon East, greatly advancing his status in society and adding lustre to his clockmaking dynasty brand. In April 1662, another warrant was issued, making East’s son, James, Clockmaker to the Queen and thus further cementing the reputation of the East dynasty. This was quite a feat, as James East was not even a member of the Clockmakers’ Company. Numerous watches and clocks that East produced during the 1660s and 1670s survive. These include the beautiful silver-cased chaise clock-watch made around 1660 (coming soon to Clocktime).[23] Its silver champlevé dial features a riot of engraved flowers erupting from a twin-handled vase, all engraved to the very highest quality. Surrounding the dial is gilt ropework. The silver case bowl is engraved and pierced, making the sound from the hour-striking bell audible. The watch’s inertial balance wheel is pivoted from an asymmetrical foot, with a pierced and engraved floral cock on the backplate. The cock controls the verge escapement, driven from a gut fusee with a worm and wheel set up. The striking barrel is also engraved with floral decoration, and the strike is paced by a silver countwheel. At the time, Charles II had become an enthusiast for royal tennis while in exile in France. After the Restoration, he had tennis clothes purpose-made, and his first accounts for 1660–1662 list eight tennis suits. He is also known to have presented a silver watch made by East as a tournament prize; while there is no evidence that this chaise clock-watch was that keepsake, it is notable that a watch of this type was regarded as a fitting and desirable royal trophy. Other clocks made during the 1660s include the ebony and gilt-brass architectural two-day striking night table clock made around 1660 (coming soon to Clocktime)[24] as well as the ebony-veneered architectural and gilt-brass mounted striking table clock on a turntable base that was made soon after, possibly in 1661 (coming soon to Clocktime).[25] There is also the spring-driven movement and dial, made around 1664 and now housed at the Science Museum (Object Number: L2015-4177), which is a very early example of a London-made pendulum timepiece with alarm-work. Additionally, there is the ebonised architectural striking verge longcase known as the Ingram East, made around 1665 (coming soon to Clocktime).[26] This clock may be further evidence of an ongoing business relationship between Fromanteel and East. The movement and case are closer to the work of Fromanteel, while the dial is decorated in East’s own style, suggesting the clock was supplied by the Fromanteel workshop, but finished under East. Also made around 1665 is East’s table or bracket clock at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Accession Number: 64.101.860). Around 1675, East produced the grande sonnerie floral marquetry longcase (coming soon to Clocktime),[27] as well as the 8-day movement in later marquetry case at the Science Museum (Object Number: L2015-3429). There is also an East movement at the British Museum, made around 1675 (ref. no.1980,1002.1) and in a later marquetry case. Finally, there is an East watch with white enamelled dial and later case dated to 1680 (Object Number: L2015-3120) at the Science Museum. Despite the new stability that came with the restoration of the monarchy, East (along with all other Londoners) faced serious disruption during this period.[28] In 1665, London experienced the worst outbreak of bubonic plague during that century. Then, just as the city and the clockmaking market were recovering from this, the Great Fire of 1666 decimated the city. Two of East’s Fleet Street properties, the Ram Alley workshop and the Le Musical Clock premises, were destroyed in the fire. The fire also consumed East’s property, the Swann with Two Necks, on Ladd Lane (now Gresham Street). This was a coaching inn that had been liable to two rent charges, each at £5 per year: one to Brasenose College, Oxford, and the other to Queens’ College, Cambridge.[29] These charges had been set up by the former owner, James Stoddard, and subsequent owners, such as East, were liable to pay the rent charges to the colleges in perpetuity. Before the Great Fire, East had leased the property to the innholder, John Ashborne. According to the reports of the Fire Court for 1667, Ashborne filed a petition against East, alleging that East had refused his proposals for rebuilding following the fire. East appeared on summons informing the court of the rents payable on the property and that he had refused the tenant’s request that he contribute £600 (a small fortune at this time) for rebuilding. The Fire Court found that Ashborne should take on the rebuilding of the inn and pay East two months’ rent, after which a new lease for 61 years should be issued with a reduced rent of £40 per year. The inn was rebuilt and prospered.[30] During this time, East appears to have retreated to his St Clement Danes property, which had been spared by the fire.

1670–1695: The sun sets on East’s dynasty

By the 1670s, East’s business was at the height of its fame and his clockmaking dynasty seemed secure. The clockmaker was almost 70 and his son James was managing his businesses. However, East was anything but retired, having been made Prime Warden of the Goldsmiths’ Company. In 1671, his other guild, the Clockmakers’ Company, also recognised East in its application for a coat of arms. In the application, East was described as

Edward East, the only person now living of those mentioned in the said Letters Patent of Incorporation of 1631.

In 1674, tragedy struck. James East, Edward’s eldest son and successor, died. James’s untimely death in the record provides a snapshot of the wealth the Easts had accumulated. The East estate was valued at the huge sum of £2027 10s 0d.[31] East was also owed over £1350 by his royal and aristocratic patrons, specifically the King and Queen, the late Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Craven, Mr. Rosewell (the Queen’s apothecary), and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Dunscombe. Most of this debt was from the Crown. Charles II, like his father and grandfather before him, was especially remiss in paying his royal employees on time, if at all. In 1674, the influential post of Royal Clockmaker was offered to Robert Seigniour (b. 1645, d. 1686), with the stipulation that he could take up the post only upon the death of Edward East. Carter suggests that Seignior may have taken over management of East’s business sometime after 1674, as East had moved out to Hampton on the outskirts of London.[32] Seigniour, however, never took up his royal post, as East outlived him by nearly ten years. During this time, East’s business ventures continued under the management of those he had carefully selected. East had always maintained good relations with his former apprentice Henry Jones. In 1693, East and Jones placed £100 in trust with the Clockmakers’ Company to pay five Freemen, or their widows, 20s per annum. When the donation was recorded, it was recommended that

...the Master and Wardens do go to Mr. East and give him hearty thanks for his charity.

At the time of this recording, East was 91 years old – an extraordinary age for the time. He probably died in late 1695, sometime between that date of the recording and the proving of his will on 23 February 1696.[33] East died a wealthy man with a residence in Hampton, Middlesex, among various other properties. He mentions four children in his will. He was the longest lived of the early London clockmakers and is arguably one of the most important and successful figures of early British clockmaking. Dr Kristin Leith, Senior Curator of Clocktime September 2023 End Notes [1] Carter 2021a, 34-38; Finch et al. 2017. [2] For a complete account of East's early pre-journeyman life and his family's history see Finch et al. 2017, 343-349. The Goldsmith’s Company is one of London’s most ancient guilds. The earliest surviving mention of the guild is in the Pipe Roll of 1179–1180, in which there is an entry that lists 18 guilds fined by King Henry II for operating without a licence. This indicates that even as early as the 1100s, the guild was well established. For the history of the Goldsmiths’ Company, see https://www.thegoldsmiths.co.uk/company/history/history-of-the-company/. For the Goldsmiths' Company Apprentice books see https://www.londonroll.org/home. [3] East is not the only example of an ambitious clockmaker to marry into an established clockmaking family. This raises many questions about the role of marriage (and women for that matter) in the successful running of a family business and workshop in London during the 1600s (an article on this topic is forthcoming to Clocktime). [4] The Bull family boasts at least nine early clockmakers. Randolph Bull (b. 1550, d. 1617) was Queen Elizabeth I’s Royal Clockmaker, and his son, Emmanuel Bull (b. 1586, d. 1650) was Prince Henry’s Royal Clockmaker from 1610. [5] Ram Alley can be seen on the Ogilby and Morgan maps, both dated to 1676, as well as the Rocque map dated 1746. To access these maps and for 17^th century literary references to Ram Alley, see https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/RAMA1.htm [6] Sugden 1925, 426. [7] Bell 1912, 252. [8] Finch et al. 2019, 191, n. 42. [9] Finch et al. 2019, 196, n. 69. [10] Taylor et al. 2019, 18, Exhibition No. 3:1. [11] Carter 2021b, 6-11, Exhibit No. 1; Taylor et al. 2019, 19, Exhibit No. 3:2. [12] King Charles I extracted so many fees on the City and its guilds that the Goldsmiths’ Company resorted to borrowing large amounts of money and was heavily in debt. Many major items of plate (precious metals) were sold to keep the company afloat. During the English Civil Wars, the Company’s court records show that ‘assaying of plate’ was all but stopped. See https://www.thegoldsmiths.co.uk/company/history/history-of-the-company/ [13] Carter 2021a, 34. [14] Carter 2021a, 36. [15] Ibid. [16] Carter 2021a, 10. [17] Carter 2021a, 36. [18] Taylor 2018, 15, Catalogue No. 33. [19] By way of contrast, East’s longcase made around 1665 has no East school features (Taylor 2018, 15, Catalogue No. 33). Its mechanism looks like it might have been designed and made by Fromanteel. It has an early bob pendulum, while the countwheel is attached to the great wheel arbor. The bob pendulum is an early feature, while the countwheel attachment is a later improvement. [20] Carter 2021a, 58, Exhibit No. 12. [21] Carter 2022, 30, Exhibit No. 5. Also see Taylor 2018, Catalogue No. 42. [22] East supplanted William Partridge and Charles II’s Royal Clockmaker. Partridge had been appointed by Charles as the Prince of Wales’ clockmaker in 1645. [23] Carter 2021b, 30-33, Exhibit No. 6; Taylor et al. 2019, 20, Exhibition No. 3:3. [24] Carter 2021a, 46–49, Exhibition No. 10. [25] Taylor 2018, 15, Catalogue No. 33. [26] Carter 2021a, 32–39, Exhibit No. 8. [27] Taylor 2018, Catalogue No. 91. [28] Carter 2021a, 38. [29] Charlton 1987. For more on East and the his property the Swann with Two Necks, see https://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/visiting-the-college/history/college-facts/the-buildings/edward-east-clock-1664 [30] In 1664, a clock that may have been made by East was presented as a gift to Queens’ College, Cambridge. It is unclear when the clock was made, and there is no way to prove that it was actually made by East or if the gift had any connection to the fact that East paid rent charges to Queen’s for his property the Swann with Two Necks. [31] Carter 2021a, 36. [32] Carter 2021a, 38. [33] East made his will in 1688 (Carter 2021a, 38). References

Bell, W. G. 1912. Fleet Street in Seven Centuries: Being a history of the growth of London beyond the walls into the Western Liberty, and of Fleet Street to our time. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons.
Carter, J. 2021a. The John C Taylor Collection: Part I (Selling Exhibition Catalogue, Carter Marsh & Co). Winchester: Carter Marsh & Co.
Carter, J. 2021b. The John C Taylor Collection: Part II (Selling Exhibition Catalogue, Carter Marsh & Co). Winchester: Carter Marsh & Co.
Charlton, F. Ferrier Harvey. 1987. The Swan with Two Necks. London: Linklaters & Paines.
Finch, V. J., A. A. Finch and A. W. Finch. 2017. ‘Edward East (1602–c. 1695). Part 1 – Early Stuart period and Commonwealth’ in Antiquarian Horology 38: 3.
Finch, A. A., V. J. Finch and A. W. Finch. 2019. ‘David Ramsay, c. 1580–1659’ in Antiquarian Horology 40: 2.
Sugden, E. 1925. A Topographical Dictionary to the Works of Shakespeare and His Fellow Dramatists. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Taylor, J. C. 2018. Innovation & Collaboration: Exhibition guide. Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd.
Taylor, J. C., K. Leith and T. Phillipson. 2019. The Luxury of Time: Clocks from 1550–1750. Isle of Man: Fromanteel Ltd.