At Her Majesty's Pleasure

Kenneth MacLeay of the Royal Scottish Academy was a difficult artist to identify given the erroneously typed description. Queen Victoria commissioned a series of portraits of the Scottish clans and some of her retainers including John Brown. The work took four years and in 1870 Vincent Brooks received the command for lithographic reproductions to be executed. The copies were intended for subscription by visitors to the exhibition at Mitchell’s Royal Library, 33 Old Bond Street.

Despite his predicament, Rudofsky was able to carry out the work, including the portrait of John Brown noted by Frederick. What the lead portrait artist of the firm was able to produce in his confinement, has a curious claim to have assisted in MacLeay's success. The National Galleries of Scotland describe the series as his 'best known work'.

Frederick alludes to the conditions of Whitecross Street Prison for debtors. The location of this establishment is now partially covered by the present day Barbican. The author appears to be not far off the mark in his assessment of the place, the risk to the arrested as 'not very distressing as long as they were not totally without resources.' The opportunity for the better off to eat and sleep well and for 'Harpies' to fleece the vulnerable are supported by the following account:

The Receiving Ward was a long low room with windows secured by bars, at each end. There were two grates, but only one contained any fire. The place was remarkably clean - the floor, the deal tables, and the forms being as white as snow.
The following conversation forthwith took place between the new prisoner and the steward:-
"What is your name?"
"Arthur Chichester."
"Have you got your bread ?"
"Yes."
"Well - put it in that pigeon-hole. Do you choose to have sheets to-night on your bed?"
"Certainly."
"Then that will be a shilling the first night, and sixpence every night after, as long as you remain here. You can, moreover, sleep in the inner room, and sit up till twelve o'clock. Those who can't afford to pay for sheets sleep in a room by themselves, and go to bed at a quarter to ten. You see we know how to separate the gentlemen from the riff-raff."
"And how long shall I be allowed to stay up in the Receiving Ward ?"
"That depends. Do you mean to live at my table? I charge six pence for tea, the same for breakfast, a shilling for dinner, and four-pence for supper."
"Well - I shall be most happy to live at your table."
"In that case, write a note to the governor to say you are certain to be able to settle your affairs in the course of a week, and I will take care he shall have it the very first thing to-morrow morning.''
"But I am sure of not being able to settle in a week."
"Do as you like. You won't be allowed to stay up here unless you do."
"Oh! in that case I will do so at once. Can you oblige me with a sheet of writing-paper ?"
"Certainly. Here is one. A penny, if you please."
Chichester paid for the paper, wrote the letter, and handed it to the Steward.
He then cast a glance round the room ; and saw three or four tolerably decent-looking persons warming themselves at the fire, while fifteen or sixteen wretched-looking men, dressed for the most part as labourers, were sitting on the forms round the walls, at a considerable distance from the blazing grate.
The Steward, perceiving that the new prisoner threw a look of inquiry towards him, said,- "Those gentlemen at the fire are Sheriff's Debtors, and live at my table: those chaps over there are Court of Requests' Men, and haven't a shilling to bless themselves with. So, of course, I can't allow them to associate with the others."

Source:
VictorianLondon.org Chapter XXXV. Whitecross-Street Prison

University Boat Race 1866

Preceded by a rather confusing section regarding Frederick's stay above a cutlery shop, the author describes his first sighting of the University Boat race. His solitary journey to Hammersmith, in the early hours, is as much rewarded with a memorable, if hairy, incident on the bridge as the considerable impression made upon the boy coming of age.

The Oxford Cambridge University boat race follows a course of 4 miles and 374 yards and on March 24th 1866 took the usual route from Putney to Mortlake upstream via Hammersmith. The race report was as follows:

For the third time running Oxford won the toss and, it was considered at the time, misguidedly chose Middlesex with a strong south-west wind and the potential trouble on the open side round the Surrey bend.

Once again steamers delayed the start until the tide was all-but at its peak. Cambridge stayed well out in the middle seeking any stream that remained, while Oxford sought shelter along the Fulham shore.

Although it was clear that Cambridge went into the lead initially, there was considerable divergence of opinion among the onlookers about whether the Light Blues were still ahead at Craven Steps and if so by how much.

It was not until opposite the Crabtree, when the crews converged when it was clear that Oxford had almost drawn level. However Cambridge moved ahead again and shot Hammersmith Bridge ahead.

Water conditions were now bad and the better watermanship of Oxford began to be effective, giving them a few feet lead as the passed the bottom of the Eyot and by Chiswick Steps the Dark Blues ahead. By the crossing they had clear water.

Shortly after this, any hope that Cambridge might have, was destroyed by their cox. A barge cut right across his course but he attempted to pass in front of it and only just avoided disaster by a dramatic turn right off the true course and by the time he was back on course, Oxford were almost 3 lengths ahead. (Charles Tottenham the Oxford cox in 1865, had ducked neatly under the stern and gained several feet.)

Oxford rowed on from there with no change in distance between the crews and their win was adjudged as 4 lengths in 23 minutes 35 seconds.

Sources:
http://www.theboatrace.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boat_Race

Friendly dedication

Frederick dedicates his autobiography to an Oliver Armstrong Fry. From 1889 to 1904, Fry was the editor of the literary and social periodical Vanity Fair, famous for its cartoon lithographs as produced by Vincent Brooks, Day & Son. Married to Annie Zetterquist Rolfe, Saint records that Fry wrote a preface to a book written by his brother-in-law, Clapton Crabb Rolfe. Saint describes this architect as 'notorious for talking clap-trap'. Oliver Fry was also a director of Vincent Brooks, Day & Son but there is surprisingly little reference to such a great friend of the author.

Source:
Saint, Andrew Three Oxford Architects. Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society.

Bank Run

The following is taken from George Jacob Holyoake's autobiography entitled, 'Sixty Years of an Agitator's life' and gives some background to the 'Go for Gold' story. Holyoake's account throws doubt on whether John Brooks was the original printer. It is surprising in either case that he added his name to the reverse but this shows his willingness to be associated in these politic circles.

Two years later the Duke of Wellington was driven from power a second time. One morning when the citizens of London appeared in the streets they found placards on the walls in large letters bearing two lines only—"Stop the Duke—Go for Gold."

How came these placards there? What printer had the temerity to print them? What stickers could be trusted with the dangerous task of setting them up, who might have been seized and imprisoned until they disclosed their employers, if indeed they escaped on those terms? Who devised that expedient of disturbing the Government of the duke? In those days of spies and militaryism the scheme was dangerous alike in conception and execution. The duke never knew that the blow came from one of the deputation whom he admonished "to keep their heads upon their shoulders." It was Francis Place who devised the scheme—which certainly he carried out.

He knew a printer in a court in Holborn who could be trusted. One Saturday afternoon when the men had left he went in to the master, examined his stock of paper, and finding it sufficient, he went out and brought in beer and food sufficient for two days, flour, a billstickers' flat can and a brush. They then locked the doors, and he and Place worked all night and the greater part of the Sunday, Place and he pulling alternately at the hand press. They made paste, and a bag which would hold the placards concealed under a loose overcoat, and on midnight of Sunday, Place went out and put up the placards himself, sticking them up in the most convenient places he came to. At certain points, he passed his friend, the printer, who had a supply of placards, which he put quickly into Place's bag, who then went on with his bill-sticking until daylight—when they went back and distributed the type. So, when the men returned to work on Monday morning, no one but Place and the printer knew how London had been placarded.

In the excitement in which London was, this suggestive warning produced an immense impression. The public knew not whence the mysterious announcement came, and, knowing nothing, every one imagined everything. No one doubted that the warning came from influential quarters. The Bank of England was besieged, and the duke who would not have retreated before an army—retreated before Place's placards.

Debate has arisen as to whether the words of the placard were "Run for Gold" or "Go for Gold." The evidence is in favour of "Go." The competent testimony of Mr. Collet admits that Place devised the placard. On hearing Joseph Parkes read a copy of a proposed wall-bill, Place stopped him and wrote instead a placard of one line "To stop the Duke—Go for Gold." It was like Place's directness and impatience of verbiage. Mr. Collet saw one of these bills at Saville House, Leicester Square, on Saturday, May 12, 1832, which may have been one Place had procured. Mr. J. G. Harney relates that he saw a placard at St. Hiliers which bore the words, "J. Brooks, Printer, Oxford Street, London," probably a reproduction of Place's placard, as £80 was subscribed to multiply them. Mr. Brooks claimed to have been the originator of the bill. Doubleday, in his "Life of Sir Robert Peel," says, "The placard was the device of four gentlemen who each put down £20 that thousands might be printed of the terrible missives. The effect was hardly to be described. It was electric." Miss Helena Cobbett, the last surviving child of William Cobbett, writes to Mr. Harney that "Her Father in the Register, vol. lxxvi. p. 392, mentioned the placard at the time of its appearance, and that her brother James had added to it a note, saying, 'The placard was suggested by Mr. John Fielden to Mr. T. Attwood, Mr. J. Parkes, and others.'" Mr. Samuel Kydd sends an extract from Alison's "History of Europe," which supplies a name for the placard which explains its efficiency. "Then were seen the infernal placards in the streets of London. ‘To Stop the Duke—Go for Gold!' and with such success was the suggestion adopted, that in three days no less than £1,800,000 was drawn out of the Bank of England in specie" (vol. iv. p. 373). The Duke resigned his first Premiership November 16, 1830, and returned to office May 9, 1832, and resigned on the 18th. The public agitations of which the placard was but a symbol, limited the Duke's second reign to nine days.

Source:

Holyoake, George Jacob (1892) Sixty Years of an Agitator's Life. London, T. Fisher Unwin. Chapter XXXI: Six Months' Imprisonment for Answering a Question in Debate.

reproduced online by Gerald Massey

John Brooks

The strength of the religious views of John Brooks, grandfather to Frederick Vincent Brooks, are illustrated in the court transcript quoted in this article taken from a issue of Richard Carlile's 'The Lion' from 1828.

SOCIAL VICE OF OATH MAKING.

WHEN a politically legal murder was to be committed at Chester, on Bruce the schoolmaster of Stockport, and Magennis who fired a pistol at Birch the constable, the court declared that the oath of a Deist was good, and that it was enough for a man to say that he believed in God to make his oath respectable. Wherever the political purposes of the crown, or the inclinations of the Judges have been in question, the courts have thus ruled. But, in two instances, where Deists have been prosecutors of thieves, two Judges have declared that a theft shall not be proved by the oath of a Deist. These two cases were decided at the Old Bailey, the first, in the person of Mr. Carlile, by the present Recorder, Newman Knowlys ; the second, in the person of Mr. Brooks, by Mr. Sergeant Arabin. Mr. Carlile certainly refused to say any thing about the word God, either as an admission or a denial, avowing no knowledge upon the subject, the Recorder refusing to define any thing about God, so as to communicate any knowledge of the word to the prosecutor. Mr. Brooks, in his case, simply expressed an absence of superstitious veneration for the New Testament, which Mr. Sergeant Arabin said was sufficient to induce him to reject the evidence and to encourage the thief, Mr. Brooks's case is the more singular and anomalous, inasmuch as, the day before, he had prosecuted another thief to conviction at the Clerkenwell Sessions; a circumstance that demanded, on the one or the other side, the immediate interference of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The one or the otherof the courts must have been in error, the one to suffer, or the other not to allow, a conviction.

Subsequently, Mr. Brooks was called on a jury in the Palace Court, and there, informing the judge, that his oath had been rejected as a Deistical prosecutor, no objection was made to his taking the oath, and becoming a Deistical juror! He was sworn and sat as a juror. There seems to be more sense and honesty in Westminster, than in the City of London, on this subject, as is further seen in the following article, which has appeared in several papers, relating to Mr. Brooks's appointment to the constabulary :—

WESTMINSTER COURT LEET.
POINTS OF RELIEF.
The ancient Court of Burgesses, by whom all constables and other officers for the city and liberty of Westminster are chosen, held the annual court leet for swearing in constables for the ensuing year. The usual lists were handed in, and those who answered were either sworn in, excused, or fined, as the respective cases might be; but one gentleman set up an excuse of rather a novel kind. Mr. John Brooks, of Oxford Street, stationer, in being called for the parish of St. Anne, Soho, came forward, and addressing the Court, said he had no objection to the trouble and inconvenience attending the serving the office of constable, but he must object to taking the oath always required.

Mr. Robson (the Clerk of the Court.)—Upon what ground do you object
to take the oath?
Mr. Brooks.—I beg leave to inform the Court that some time ago, being a witness at the Old Bailey in a case of robbery, I was questioned as it my belief on certain points of religion, and on answering conscientiously on the points mentioned, Mr. Serjeant Arabin declared that I was an unfit person to be sworn, and that in fact, my evidence must be rejected. The judge of a superior court having refused to suffer the oath to be administered, I conceive that the example must be followed here upon the same grounds.
Mr. Robson, sen. (the Chairman.)—Administer the oath officer, let Mr. Brooks be sworn.
Mr. Brooks.—I will not submit to be sworn in one court when the oath has been refused to me in another. Besides, I object altogether being sworn upon the New Testament.
Mr. Robson, jun.—That is not a valid excuse. The Court here know of no objection to your taking the oath faithfully to perform the duties of constable.
Mr. Brooks.—But what is the use of my undertaking the office of constable, when my evidence is inadmissible in a court of justice, according to the declaration of a learned judge ?
Mr. Robson, jun.—Then, Sir, you must be fined. The same objection was made last year by Mr. Leigh Hunt, but the Court decided that he was liable, and fined him in the usual way.
The Chairman,—Officer, call Mr. Brooks upon his fine.
The officer then called John Brooks to come into Court and save his fine of £8.
Mr. Brooks.—I am here, but I object to be sworn.
Mr. Robson, jun.—You had better take the book, Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks.—No, I will not. In the performance of my duty as a constable, it is very probable that my evidence may be necessary in cases extremely important to the interests of justice. I might, for instance, be called upon to apprehend parties concerned in great offences, and be able to give testimony which would go a great way towards convicting the offenders. How foolish should I then look, and how justice would be defeated, when I appeared in the Court at the Old Bailey and was told by some such sage as Mr. Justice Arabin that my evidence could not be received.
Mr. Robson, jun.—You must either serve or be fined.
Mr. Brooks.—I object to be sworn.
Mr. Robson, jun.—You cannot serve without being sworn.
Mr. Brooks.—Then I cannot serve at all.
Mr. Robson, jun. then entered Mr. Brooks as fined in the sum of £8.
Mr. Brooks said he would not pay the fine, and would resist any attempts to enforce the payment thereof.

Source:
Carlile, R. (1829) The lion Vol. IV, July 3-Dec 25, p.451-453, Fleet Street
Original from Harvard University