The elusive Mr Mercier

A recent post on the Chetham Society Facebook was about a portrait of our friend Francis Raines. The painting was described as by 'an unknown artist'. The artist was almost certainly Charles Mercier (1834-1901), who has cropped up in my researches as having painted Crossley, and Canons Parkinson and Raines of the Chetham Society.  Mercier was a London-born portraitist who lived and worked in Manchester from the 1850s to around 1877, when he is thought to have died. He exhibited at the Royal Academy1863, and numbered among his more distinguished sitters Disraeli, Lord Napier and the king of Belgium. However the majority of his patrons were army officers (hence his use of the title 'Major') and worthy citizens of Manchester and Liverpool, including Chetham Society notables such as James Crossley and Canons Richard Parkinson and Francis Raines, in addition to a dramatic picture of the prison philanthropist Thomas Wright ministering to a convict, entitled 'The Condemned Cell' (see Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, vol. 109, 2016).

My problem with Mr (also known as 'Major') Mercier concerns his portrait of James Crossley. Here's my account of this, from James Crossley: A Manchester Man of Letters (pp.193-5)

A portrait of Crossley was commissioned which, it was hoped, would hang in the Free Library, chosen as the most appropriate place in view of Crossley’s contribution to its formation. As treasurer of the subscription fund, Peel approached the Free Library Committee offering to present the portrait to that institution. The chosen artist was Charles Mercier, a London-born portraitist who lived and worked in Manchester, from the 1850s to around 1877, when he is thought to have died. He exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1863, and numbered among his more distinguished sitters Disraeli, Lord Napier and the king of Belgium.  However, the majority of his patrons were army officers (he is sometimes titled Major Charles Mercier) and worthy citizens of Manchester and Liverpool, including two of Crossley’s closest friends and members of the Chetham Society council. After Crossley’s portrait was painted, Parkinson expressed an interest, and in June 1857, Raines reported that Mercier was to visit St. Bee’s to preserve the reverend gentleman’s image in oils. Exactly two years later, Raines was himself approached by the artist, with Crossley’s approval, as he wrote to Raines: ‘I hope you have acceded to Mr. Mercier’s request. He seems so happy in his likenesses.’ The Raines portrait is now stored at Chetham’s Library, and that of Parkinson can be found at St. Bee’s College, Cumbria.

Mercier’s representation of Crossley received universal approbation, and was described in detail by the local press:

The portrait, which is of the proportions technically called “to the knees” represents Mr.Crossley standing by a table, on which are piles of books. His left hand rests on a book, the right is slightly raised, and he looks as if speaking. The portrait is an admirable and characteristic likeness, not only in features, but in expression; while the accessories are few, and the tone of the picture quiet. It is a very satisfactory work, and reflects great credit to the artist. 

The Free Library Committee immediately accepted Peel’s gift of the painting, and the Town Clerk, Joseph Heron, conveyed their gratification and thanks to the subscribers, promising to place the portrait in a prominent position in the Camp Field Library. Before its removal to the Free Library, the painting was placed on view at the Town Hall, where, at the next meeting of the Manchester Council, John Potter added his own words of approval and his acknowledgements of Crossley’s achievements. Moving the adoption of the Free Library Committee’s proposals, he is reported to have added that: ‘everyone connected with the Free Library felt deeply indebted to Mr.Crossley for his labours in favour of what was, and he [Potter] hoped ever would be, a useful and benevolent institution.’ The portrait was eventually hung over the main entrance to the Free Library, where it remained until the Camp Field site was vacated. Its subsequent whereabouts have not been fully documented, but there is evidence that the work was removed to the Central Library where it appeared on a 1941 inventory of the library’s possessions.

Since then, not a trace has been found of the portrait. There is a picture listed in the Manchester Central Library archive as Sir James Crossley (artist: Mercier). Here it is:

Apart from the obvious fact that this does not look like the Crossley we know and love from photographs and the Walker portrait, which hangs in Chetham's Library, this portrait does not seem to be in Mercier's style. Furthermore, it doesn't correspond with the description above, nor with the report of the Manchester Courier on 10 April 1858:

The pleasant expression of Mr. Crossley has been happily caught, and fixed on the canvas, and the accessories of books and writing materials on the table, by the side of which Mr. Crossley is represented as standing, are well introduced.

Books and writing materials? Standing? To the knees? Left hand resting on a book? Looks as if speaking? etc., etc., I don't think so. So the search goes on. My dream is that the portrait is in storage, or in one of the many 'committee rooms' in the Central Library, and that one day I will get to see it. 



 

Cobden's reply to Mrs Gaskell

My Dear Mrs Gaskell,
I hope you will not think me neglectful in not having before replied to your letter which you did me the honour to send me upon the subject of the painting of the 'Good Samaritan' – My first suggestion to Mrs Schwabe on reading your note was that to identify the picture with Mr Wright's philanthropic missions it ought to contain his portrait – This I suppose is not possible – Without this I do not see exactly how it can be identified with his proceedings in Manchester – Further let me add my candid doubts whether his character be sufficiently known and appreciated by the wealthy inhabitants of your city to ensure the purchase of a large historical picture to be placed as a tribute to his virtue in one of your public buildings … I will endeavour to accompany Mrs Schwabe at the beginning of the week to see the picture, and at all events will let you know through her my opinion of it, which after all is not worth much, as I am not a connoisseur – Again hoping you will excuse my delay in writing.

Believe me
ever faithfully yours
Rhd Cobden

This was written on the 9^th of February, 15 days after the Gaskell letter under discussion was dated, so if Cobden had let two weeks go by before answering in this era of prolific letter-writing, then his apologies for tardiness would have been perfectly in order, and his letter would fit the chronology of events exactly.  Unfortunately, Cobden does not offer a 'hearty feeling' as Mrs Gaskell hoped, but instead voices doubts and apprehensions regarding the reaction of the Manchester burghers who would be asked to underwrite the acquisition. The points he raises are practical and down-to-earth, appropriate to a man of action who likes to get things done. He is not interested in the allegorical portrayal of Wright as the Samaritan, but worries that the denizens of Manchester may not make the connection between the subject of the painting and its dedicatee, unless it were made plain with a recognizable portrayal of the philanthropist on the canvas. This, he assumes 'is not possible'.  Cobden also makes clear his fears that Wright's 'humble sphere of action' would not warrant recognition from the influential townspeople, leaving unfinished the well-worn biblical quotation 'a prophet is not without honour [save in his own country, and in his own house]'. Despite these misgivings, he agrees to view the painting with Mrs Schwabe, and it is interesting to speculate about the possibility that he evinced the same opinions to the artist as he did to the novelist. Watts was preoccupied with the subject throughout his life, and did indeed paint a version of the picture with Wright's portrait as the Samaritan, so it is possible that Cobden's suggestion may have kindled a creative spark in the painter's imagination.

The probable correspondent

If the letters in question were not sent to Crossley, then who was the intended receiver? One of the major targets in the author's sights was Richard Cobden, whom she expressed a wish to 'work up', as we saw in the letter to Tottie Fox. He qualifies in all the respects that Crossley does not, as the object of the unidentified package of letters. As a Liberal M.P., he would have had a London base and would have been familiar with the more influential sections of society. Charles Street, Berkeley Square is a short distance from Westminster, so it would have been quite convenient for Cobden to call in at Watts's studio to view the painting. His political credentials ensured that he was already on friendly terms with Salis Schwabe and would have been able to pass on the messages requested by the writer without any trouble. There is no surviving letter written by Mrs Gaskell to Cobden up to that point and previous letters mention only Mrs Cobden, so the tone of the opening and closing sentences of the letter under discussion, apologising for the 'liberty' taken in making contact with the reader, would be perfectly appropriate in the circumstances. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that Cobden would have been a much more likely correspondent than Crossley. This theory is strengthened by our knowledge that Mrs Gaskell did write to Cobden on the subject of the Watts painting, because his reply is preserved.

To be continued in the next post