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

Why the letter from Mrs Gaskell was not written to James Crossley

James Crossley was a man of fixed habits, from which he seldom deviated. In 1850, he divided his time between his legal practice and antiquarian matters, chiefly those of the Chetham Society, over which he presided until his death thirty-three years later. He rarely travelled outside the environs of Manchester and his visits to London were few and far between. The person Mrs Gaskell was addressing about Watts's picture would have needed to have been, if not a resident, then a frequent visitor to the capital. Mrs Gaskell assumes that her reader is acquainted with Tom Taylor, which narrows the field to a person who moves in certain specific circles in London society. Crossley could not possibly have had access to such precisely defined company, which would only have been open to someone with a fixed residence in the city, whether temporary or permanent. Similarly, Mrs Gaskell expects the addressee to be able to call at Watt's studio in Berkeley Square to inspect the painting; an impossible task for a Manchester resident. It is inconceivable that the author would request such a visit from James Crossley, with whom she is unacquainted, and has not previously corresponded. Furthermore, she is writing to a person who is on friendly terms with Salis Schwabe, to 'call his attention' to Watts's address and the fraternity of Taylor and Bunsen. Middle class Manchester at that time was riven with deep divisions in politics and religion: on the one side Liberal and Unitarian and on the other Tory and Church of England. Prominent in the former were the Schwabes, Richard Cobden and the Gaskells. James Crossley was firmly in the opposite camp, active in the Conservative interest and associated through the Chetham Society with high churchmen like Canons Parkinson and Raines and the Rev. Thomas Corser.  There are exceptions to every rule, especially in the area of charitable works, where political and sectarian distinctions could become blurred. Mrs Gaskell's friendship with Bishop Lee is one example of this, but his involvement only makes Crossley less likely to be associated with the scheme, as his contempt for the Bishop was well known.

^{STILL MORE TO FOLLOW}      

A letter from Mrs Gaskell to James Crossley?

This is a extract from a paper I gave on Saturday 28th November at the Gaskell House, Plymouth Grove, Manchester. I focus on a letter written by Mrs Gaskell on January 25th, 1850, which is printed as letter 65 in Chappell and Pollard's The Letters of Mrs Gaskell (Manchester: MUP, 1997). It's about raising a subscription to bring G. F. Watts's painting, The Good Samaritan, dedicated to the prison philanthropist Thomas Wright, to Manchester. The letter runs as follows:

 

           Dear Sir,

         I hope you will not consider that I am taking too great a liberty in complying with the request contained in these letters calling your attention to the subject of them. You are probably acquainted with Mr Tom Taylor … and if so, you will know that his opinion of any artist is not that of an ignorant enthusiast, but of one who has devoted much earnest study to the subject, and believes that it may be the means of doing a great work in the world. It is perhaps rather unbusinesslike to with-hold the price of the picture; but apropos of that, I will quote a passage from a letter which I do not forward. 'Remember we do not want subscriptions in the common sense of the word. We would rather have a man's interest and appreciation of our plan than his money; indeed we should despise the latter unless his hearty feeling went with it.'

            Will it be too much to ask for your 'hearty feeling', and will you evince this by looking at the   painting in Mr Watt's [sic] studio, 30 Charles Street, Berkeley Sqr. Perhaps you would be so kind as to call Mr Schwabe's attention to this address; and also to the PS at the beginning of the last note in which Mr Taylor says 'he knows Chevalier Bunsen, & is sure of his co-operation.'?

Our problem here is the identity of the receiver of the package of letters. It has been suggested in the published Letters of Mrs Gaskell that this person was James Crossley, a prominent Manchester solicitor and antiquarian, with the catalogue compiled by J. A. Green in 1914 cited as the source of this information. However, Green's list does not name Crossley, the entry simply reads 'Letter from 121 Upper Romford Street' Mrs Gaskell did write to Crossley twice on bibliographical matters, and the two letters are clearly marked with his name. They follow the mystery letter in Green's list, so there may have been an assumption that all three were addressed to the same person.  Similarly, in an earlier version of the list, referring to an exhibition of the Gaskell Collection in 1911, Green had catalogued the letters in the same way: 'Upper Romford Street', followed by the two genuine Crossley letters. W.E.A. Axon refers to these in a paper given to the Manchester Literary Club in the same year, but states that in the exhibition 'there is a letter from her [Mrs Gaskell] to Mr James Crossley F.S.A., on the subject [of Watts's painting]'. It is probable that this misreading of Green's catalogue has been carried forward into later editions of the Gaskell correspondence, including the current one.

MORE TO FOLLOW

Following up a letter to Crossley

I think one of the most interesting aspects of historical study is the discovery of unexpected avenues of exploration which open up when we look at even the most seemingly commonplace pieces of information. I am thinking here of random historical study, undertaken for its own sake; unconnected with any prescribed syllabus, and free from the tyranny of supporting an extended hypothesis. Without these constraints, we can wander freely away from our original source and find ourselves in new and quite unconnected but rich and rewarding areas of interest.

For a while, in the nineteenth century, it seemed that all literary and antiquarian roads led to James Crossley, and in 1860, he received a letter from Joseph Parkes (1796-1865). Parkes was a Birmingham solicitor, municipal reformer and antiquarian, whose magnum opus was to be the Memoirs of Sir Philip Francis, with Correspondence and Journals, and he wrote to Crossley with some minor queries concerning Francis and various associated literary topics. The letter contained a flattering reference which may have been calculated to elicit a response, but was also a fairly accurate description: 'Your mind is a bonded warehouse of Literary Knowledge and your house is a Mausoleum of Curious and valuable & many more books.'

Unfortunately, Parkes died before he could finish this work, and the two volumes were completed by Herman Merivale, and published in 1867. Parkes's preface, written in 1865, contains no reference to Crossley, but tantalisingly, Merivale adds: 'Mr Parkes's Preface contained acknowledgements of the communication of some of other papers which he deemed of value; but as these have not been used by the present editor, the passages in question have been omitted.' Could he have been referring to communications from Crossley? How intriguing!

Let's travel a little further afield. Who was Sir Philip Francis (1740-1818, pictured left)? Well, he was a British civil servant, born in Dublin and educated in London. After serving in many minor government posts he became, in 1773, a member of the Council of Bengal; in 1780 he fought a duel with Warren Hastings (with whom he was always quarrelling), and was seriously wounded. In 1781 he returned home with a fortune gained at whist. He entered parliament in 1784, and was energetic in the proceedings against Hastings.

Now we need a reminder about Warren Hastings (pictured below, 1732-1818, the same year as Francis's demise) . He went out to Calcutta in 1750 as a writer in the service of the East India Company, and in 1772, after a brief return to England, became governor of Bengal and president of the council. The majority of the council, led by Philip Francis, were opposed to Hastings from the first. The finances were in disorder and one of Hastings's first tasks was to bring to trial the two fiscal ministers of Bengal on charges of embezzlement. The case broke down, and charges of corruption were brought against Hastings. He was certainly a tough and ruthless administrator of the region and made many enemies, especially Francis. On his return to England in1788, his conduct was the subject of a parliamentary enquiry and he was impeached at the bar of the House of Lords in a case which dragged on until 1795, when he was acquitted, though ruined by the expenses of the proceedings. However, the East India Company made a generous provision for his declining years and he ended his life as a country gentleman in Worcestershire.

So we have travelled quite a distance from Crossley's house in Booth Street, Manchester in 1860, when the letter from Parkes arrived,  but it's fascinating how one enquiry can lead to another, and another. The ODNB gives fuller information and bibliographies on the lives of Francis and Hastings, and your library will probably have access this excellent source. Of course there's always Wikipedia, though their article on Francis suffers from 'multiple issues'. Incidentally, the brief Wikipedia article on Crossley was not written by me, though the one in the ODNB was.

On Crossley's birthday, March 1876

Crossley's birthday (31st March) is approaching. Raines writes:

'The years pass away too rapidly, but it is delightful to find that they deal so gently with you, and that you really find life worth having, as you enjoy good health, although we cannot conceal the fact that after three score and ten years, the next ten is a Balaclava charge into the jaws of death.' (Raines to Crossley, 27th March, 1876)

More from Raines

The correspondence between Raines and Crossley is a rich source of sidelights on the attitudes and opinions of one section of nineteenth-century Mancunian society. Middle-class Tories and antiquarians both, their views on current political and social matters inevitably crept into their letters. For example, in the 1870s (actual date uncertain), we learn that 'Mr Fielden, the MP for West Riding, has applied for admission to the Society of Antiquaries and is seeking referees'. This would be Joshua Fielden (1827-1887) , the son of John Fielden the radical Liberal MP for Oldham, who had had the temerity to oppose child labour in factories, advocating a reduction in working hours for children and the introduction of a minimum wage.


Raines rather condescendingly provides a reference for Joshua and recommends that Crossley follows suit. The Canon continues: 'He [Fielden] is a very pleasant man, and antiquarian tastes may rescue him altogether from the mire of Radicalism and Dissent.' This is rather unfair to Joshua, who, unlike his father, was a Conservative MP. The charge of dissent is closer to the mark, as the Fieldens were strong Unitarians and Joshua provided funds to build a Unitarian church in Todmorden and helped to introduce salaries for ministers.

An invitation to dinner at Milnrow

The Rev. Canon Francis Raines, vicar of Milnrow (near Rochdale) edited many volumes of Chetham Society publications and was a great friend of Crossley's. In a letter dating from the 1870s (precise date unknown) Raines invites his friend to dinner, as follows:

'Dinner is for 5.00 pm. The omnibus does not leave the Ship Inn (near the station) until 2.00 pm, which may not be a very convenient hour, but cabs may be had to Milnrow for a couple of shillings. As this is Lent we shall provide plenty of Fish, Eggs and Vegetables'

Crossley's reply has not been preserved.