Recent Conference: ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’

‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’:

The Guardian in Local, National, and Global History

 

Thursday 6 April 2017, The John Rylands Library,

 The University of Manchester

 

Keynote speaker: Alan Rusbridger, Principal of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and former Editor-in-Chief of the Guardian.

 

The University of Manchester Library and the John Rylands Research Institute present a one-day interdisciplinary conference on the history of the Guardian newspaper.

 

Abstract of one of the papers to be read:

 

                                  A Challenge to the Editor

 

Manchester was the scene of great constitutional change during the 1830s. Following repeated defeats at the polls, Tory morale was low at this time, but the proposal in 1838 to incorporate the borough, under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, provided a rallying point and a cause to unify the ailing party in opposition to the plan. Incorporation presented for the first time the possibility that administrative power might be removed from those who felt they had the right to it by virtue of property, position and tradition, and given to elected representatives.

James Crossley, a prominent solicitor with literary and antiquarian interests, played an important part in defending the Tory viewpoint, and resisting any attempts to bring about reform. The Manchester Guardian championed the cause of incorporation, while the Manchester Courier and Wheeler's Manchester Chronicle took the opposite view. When the debate was at its height and tempers were running high on both sides, a dispute developed between Crossley and the founder and first editor of the Manchester Guardian, John Edward Taylor, who has been described as ‘a small man of louring mien and priggish temperament’. Taylor described Crossley, by implication, as a ‘disreputable lawyer … guilty not merely of wilful misrepresentation, but of actual falsehood’ which resulted in Crossley challenging Taylor to a duel. This paper will tell the story of the events leading up to this challenge, and examine its consequences.

Steve Collins

 

                                                     John Edward Taylor

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

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.