Showing posts with label John Brooks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Brooks. Show all posts

Monday, 27 July 2015

Kensal Green Reformers Found


Long on the to-do list has been a visit to the wonderful Kensal Green Cemetery, it's Dissenters Chapel, monument to Robert Owen and the Reformers Memorial. Driving from Neasden to Hammersmith with a bit of time to spare I took the opportunity. 

I parked and started walking towards the sign-posted Dissenters Chapel. I guessed that the other monuments wouldn't be too far from there. Getting an idea of scale and seeing that the Chapel was right down by the main gate, I headed back to the van. I drove to the 'main gate' only to find that all vehicular access was via the gate I had already been into. I drove back up the road and then slowly back down through the cemetery. Not wanting to waste too much more time I enquired in the office as to the location of the monuments. Armed with a printed out map and short information sheet I set off again...   



The two side-by-side monuments, in this not-so-elaborate end of the graveyard, are hard to miss.
It was almost chilling to see the names of many people that we have come across in our research all listed in stone in one place but I was now in too much of a hurry to be truly moved. Details of the two obelisks and their inscriptions can be found on the Wikipedia page linked to above.

My next task is to work on connects of those people listed back to John Brooks. We already have links to my favourite vegetarian Julian Hibbert, John's fellow accused William Devonshire Saull, John's publishing of Robert Owen's works, his associations with Richard Carlile and John's son Vincent staying on John Minter Morgan's farm. Hopefully more to follow....





Sunday, 8 February 2015

The King Against Robert Taylor and Others

As detailed in other posts in this blog we know that a Harriet Robinson who witnessed the marriage of John Brooks and Elizabeth Stagoll in 1808 went on to marry the Rev. Robert Taylor (poss. Jan 17th 1834). We also knew that John Brooks had published Taylor's Diegesis; Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity' in 1829. We have recently rediscovered details of events from the previous year;

The initial charges date from 1827 but the case did to get heard until Jan/Feb 1828. 

1st count.
"Robert Taylor...John Roome...Thomas Brushfield...William Devonshire Saull...John Hanger...John Brooks...William Freeman...being persons of wicked, profane, and irreligious minds and dispositions...on the 1st day of January, in the 7th year of the reign of our sovereign Lord George the Fourth [1827]...did wickedly and impiously conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, to blaspheme our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to bring into ridicule and contempt the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures."

The indictment continues;

They "open[ed] a certain room, for the purpose, amongst other things, of delivering therein blasphemous and impious discourses,..."

"and did also...in pursuance of the said conspiracy...print and published, and cause to be printed and published, a certain impious and blasphemous libel, in the form of an advertisement...

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY
The ninety-third discussion will be held in the Areopagus, on Tuesday, the 13th inst, at seven precisely.
Subject-"The Character of Christ," as published by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. The Reverend Orator will deliver a Philippic in expose of the atrocious villains that characterise the Jewish Vampire, (meaning our said Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) and in respectful challenge of his Ministers, to come forward and shew, if they themselves are not ashamed of him. 
The Holy Liturgy, as performed every Sunday, and in the ninetieth Oration delivered by the Rev.Orator, in irrefutable demonstration of the forgery and imposture of the four Gospels, are to be had of the printer, J. Brooks, 421, Oxford Street, and at the Areopagus, every Tuesday evening, 86 Cannon Street.

    
2nd count.
...by blasphemous and impious speeches and discourses, and by other unlawful means, to bring into hatred and contempt and ridicule  the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures; to the high displeasure of Almighty God...and against the the peace of our said Lord the King, his crown and dignity. 

3rd count.
...such persons aforesaid...disregarding the laws and religion of this realm...[brought] into contempt the Christian Religion. [And did] deliver and cause to be delivered divers wicked, impious and blasphemous discourses...to wit, 500 persons, then and there, on these dates and times, assembled to the great scandal the Christian Religion..."    


According to Richard Carlile writing in 'The Lion' (No.3 vol 1. Friday, January 18, 1828) Robert Taylor stood alone charged of the second indictment. At the time of writing we can not discover what happened to John Brooks and the other five accused. At one point they are offered no further action if they just plead guilty but they are talked out of this by Taylor as a matter of principle.
Whatever happen to them we know that on the 7th Feb Taylor was sentenced to a year in Oakham Goal.

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

The Brooks' Journey to Jersey

A week's holiday in the delightful Channel Island of Jersey recently allowed us to do some on-site family research. John and Elizabeth Brooks appear to have moved from London to Jersey during the 1830's. The reason for this move are far from clear. Was John's radical printing press getting him into hot water? Was it a commercial decision as John turned more to wholesale stationary? Or was it to aid the convalescence of their daughter Harriet?

The notes made from Elizabeth Brooks’ diary show that she was visiting Jersey from the middle of the eighteen thirties. This period also ties in roughly with the time we stop finding books printed by her husband John Brooks from his Oxford Street premises. The census of 1841 shows John, Elizabeth, daughter Harriet and their son Vincent’s first wife Mary all living in the High Street of St. Aubins in the south west of Jersey. Elizabeth’s diary tells us that Harriet was christened on 13th May 1841 in St. Aubins although we could find no official record of this event.

The next diary entry of note refers to ‘taking Millbrook Cottage Xmas 1845’. Millbrook is on the south coast of Jersey just outside St.Helier. A librarian at the Société Jersiasie informed me that, at this time, the Millbrook area was just starting to develop with fashionable houses set amongst the sand dunes. This move closer to St.Helier links in with John Brooks’ purchase of some property in the Caledonia Place area of St.Helier, down on the dock side. The descriptions found in the Jersey Almanacs change over the years but list John Brooks as either a Wholesale Stationer, Paper Merchant or a Paper Bag Manufacturer, but always in Caledonia Place (pictured below). His son-in-law Samuel Buttfield is also listed as a Merchant operating from two doors down the street.
Caledonia Place St.Helier
The Brooks’ then made a move into St.Helier itself and in the 1851 census we find them at King’s Cliff. Again, according to the librarian, a very smart and very English part of town. We know that they lived at number eight but on our brief visit we were unable to locate which house this was. However the picture below should give you an idea of the area. King's Cliff (now Lower)

At 5.30 am on 11th January 1855 Elizabeth Brooks passed away at the age of 66. She was buried at the Almorah Cemetery a short distance from the house. One of the first places we visited was this cemetery but our grave hunt proved fruitless. Two days later the ever-helpful librarian at the Société Jersiaise searched her records and found a cemetery map and grid reference. That afternoon, crawling on all fours, we uncovered Elizabeth's headstone hidden engulfed by a holly bush. The picture shows us taking a rubbing of the headstone once we had given the tree a good trim. Grave rubbing Almorah

1861 finds John Brooks living with his daughter Harriet’s family in Buckingham Lodge, Duhamel Place, which is pictured below.
John Brooks made it to 84 years and 9 months before passing away at mid-day 12th January 1867. He joined his wife’s side, in Almorah and we hoped to see his named carved below that of his wife. Unfortunately the lower part of the headstone was too badly worn to read anything.Buckingham Lodge Duhamel Place

When John died he was living at 16 Regent Road and had been there with Harriet’s family since at least 1865 when he wrote his Will. With Regent road running in the shadow of St. Helier’s Regent Fort the house at first appears nothing special. However, reading a plaque on a neighbouring building describing the views of open country across to the coast that such properties enjoyed back in the eighteen century made us realise that this was the back of the house. Walking through an archway away from the road we viewed the house in it’s fully glory (trying to imagine it without the car park and secondary flats that have been build on the back garden). In it's day it must of been one of the finest houses in St.Helier.
16 Regent Road St.Helier
On John’s death the business passed to his son Frederick. Records from the Jersey archive hint at trouble in 1875. These legal documents are handwritten in eighteen century French legal jargon and have been a pain to translate. From what we can just about comprehend in 1875 the business was in debt and all the Brooks children, Vincent, Frederick, Harriet and Thomas, renounced their inheritance to escape the effects of bankruptcy.

Of John and Elizabeth's four children, Vincent stayed in London carrying on the printing business that later turned into Vincent Brooks, day and Son. Frederick, who had previously been out in Quebec, settled down in St.Helier to run a boarding house first at number 6 and then at number 3 Elizabeth Place. Harriet’s husband Samuel Buttfield died at the age of 43 and she returned to London to be mentioned in Frederick Vincent Brooks’ biography who wrote “it is a joy to know [she] is still living as Mrs Buttfield at Bush Hill Park, Enfield.” We have no trace of Thomas except from an old family tree which has him married to a ‘Kitty’.[Letitia Kilpack, ran Victoria Hotel, Guernsey 1867-1881].

Friday, 27 February 2009

Stagoll, Robinson and the Devil's Chaplain

In the previous post we saw that Elizabeth Stagoll's marriage record was witnessed by Harriet Robinson. To strengthen our theory that this 1808 wedding of John Brooks and Elizabeth Stagoll is the one relating to our family tree we now turn to examine Miss Robinson.


Our first reference to Harriet Robinson came from Elizabeth's copied diary entries:

"Mrs Robinson was married to Mr Taylor Jan 17 1834"

Rev. Robert TaylorA subsequent entry tells us that Mr. Taylor died in 1844. Both these dates tie in with the Rev. Robert Taylor, a radical free-thinker and anti-clericalist nick-named 'the devil's chaplain'. In 1829 John Brooks published Taylor's 'Diegesis; Being a Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity' and both Brooks and Taylor were acquaintances with Richard Carlile and Julian Hibbert.

It is interesting to note that John Brooks was an executor in Hibbert's will. When the non-animal-eating Hibbert died suddenly in 1834 (also recorded in the diary) a sum of money left to Robert Taylor was 'revoked by a codicil, in consquence, as he states, of Taylor having married a Lady of large fortune'. The Cambridge Alumni Database also records this marriage to 'an elderly lady of means'.

Parish records for St. Giles in Field indeed register the 1834 marriage of a Robert Taylor and Harriet Robinson although we have yet to obtain a copy of the certificate.

The Cambridge records also record Taylor's 1844 death in Tours, France. This might explain another diary entry:


"Left Tours for Jersey June 4th 1842...
...my second visit to Tours June 7th 1844. Mr. Taylor died about 7th June 1844"


So to summarise, the 1808 marriage of John Brooks and Elizabeth Stagoll looks very likely to be the correct one. Harriet Robinson was a good friend of Elizabeth who later married Rev Robert Taylor. Elizabeth continued to visit Harriet even after the Taylor's move to Tours and yet another diary entry records a last visit to Mrs Taylor in Cumberland.



Sources:
Cambridge Alumni Database
The Gentleman's Magazine Published by F. Jefferies, 1834

Monday, 23 February 2009

Stagoll verses Steggall

Frederick Vincent Brook's autobiography names his paternal grandmother as Elizabeth Steggall. Although we are fortunate enough to have a transcription of some of her diary entries we have always struggled to learn much about her origins or even her marriage to John Brooks. It now seems that the spelling of her surname could well have thrown us off the scent.

Our first inkling that something was not right was when the only marriage record we could find for the name John Brooks was for a marriage to an Elizabeth Stagoll. This wedding took place on the 10th May 1808, which is a little early considering Frederick's memory of John Brooks returning from America 'in time for the Waterloo Rejoicing' in 1815. At a time when there was only one form of contraception it is also unusual that Frederick's father, Vincent Brooks, wasn't born until the same year.

Was there any evidence to back up the 1808 marriage certificate?
We are fortunate to have a copy of the record of Vincent Brook's first marriage to Mary Ann Wybrow in 1839. Elizabeth, his mother, signed as a witness to the event. Although surnames are different (the first an unmarried Stagoll, the second a married Brooks) we can compare the signatures from the two marriage documents. Both names are abbreviated to 'Elizth' and are remarkably alike.

What else do we know about Elizabeth that might add weight to our theory?
All we know about her family comes from a snippet in her diary:

"My beloved sister Fanny married Feb 27th, 1820.
Elizabeth Matilda Clara born Dec 30th, 1820, her only child.
On the 10th of January 1826 my dear sister with her husband & child were lost off the Texel coming from Bolivia to Amsterdam".


A search of parish records for Elizabeth Steggall produces nothing.
A search for Stagoll gives us the following results:

Elizabeth Clarkson and John stagoll Married 1787 St.Botolph Without Aldgate,
Children and christening dates:
Elizabeth Stagoll, 1789 St.Olave
Mary Stagoll, 26.10.1791 St. Botolph Without Aldgate
Matilda Amelia Stagoll, 17.08.1792 St. Olave
Martha Stagoll, 09.10.1793 St.Olave Hart Street
Fanny Stagoll, 26.06.1796 St.Botolph Without Aldgate
Jonathan Stagoll, 15.05.1803 St. Botolph Without Aldgate

So here we find an Elizabeth Stagoll who would have been nineteen or twenty at the time of the 1808 marriage and who also had a younger sister called Fanny. This fits in nicely with the diary entry. In naming her child 'Elizabeth Matilda', could Fanny also have been using the names of two of her older sisters?

The chances of our Elizabeth being a Stagoll instead of a Steggall are looking more likely. However, does the real key to the mystery lie in the name of a witness on the 1808 marriage certificate?

To follow, Harriet Robinson and the Devil's Chaplain...

Sunday, 21 December 2008

Percy Bysshe Shelley and the pirate

Percy Bysshe ShelleyOne of the more notable books published by John Brooks was an edition of Shelley's Queen Mab. The rather unauthorised appearance of this volume, how it was obtained and Shelley's amendments to it have long intrigued scholars of the subject. The text below comes from two sources. The first first-hand account was written by Thomas Medwin and comes from 'The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley' published in 1847. The second is from 'The complete poetry of Percy Bysshe Shelley' by Donald H. Reiman (2000). Reiman describes Queen Mab,

'...perhaps Shelley's most intellectually ambitious work, articulating his views of science, politics, history, religion, society, and individual human relations. Subtitled A Philosophical Poem: With Notes, it became his most influential -- and pirated -- poem during much of the nineteenth century, a favorite among reformers and radicals.'

"One evening he [Sir Thomas Lawrence] persuaded me to accompany him to the Owenite chapel, in Charlotte-street. In the ante-room, I observed a man at a table, on which were laid for sale, among many works on a small scale, this History of the Nairs, and Queen Mab, and after the discourse by Owen—a sort of doctrinal rather than moral essay, in which he promised his disciples a millennium of roast beef and fowls, and three or four days' recreation out of the seven, equal division of property, and an universality of knowledge by education,—we had an interview with the lecturer and reformer, whom I had met some years before at the house of a Northumberland lady. On finding that I was connected with Shelley, he made a long panegyric on him, and taking up one of the Queen Mabs from the table, read, premising that it was the basis of one of his chief tenets, the following passage:

"How long ought the sexual connection to last! What law ought to specify the extent of the grievance that should limit its duration! A husband and wife ought to continue so long united as they love one another. Any law that should bind them to cohabitation for one moment after the decay of their affection, would be a most intolerable tyranny, and most unworthy of toleration."

If Lord Melbourne did not hold similar opinions, he at least thought there was no harm in encouraging them, by presenting Mr. Owen to our Queen. The question is, whether, in the - present state of society, and with the want of education that characterises the sect of which Mr. Owen is the founder, the Socialists, their tenets are, or are not pregnant with danger. This philanthropist, however, certainly is sincere in believing the contrary; and up to this time experience seems to have confirmed his belief. He has spent his life, and expended his fortune in inculcating them; and a more thoroughly amiable and moral man does not exist. "He has had but one object in both hemispheres," (to use the words of Frederica Bremer,) "to help the mass of mankind to food and raiment, in order that the mass may make provision for their mental improvement; for when the necessary wants are satisfied, man turns to those of a more general and exalted kind. Hence, when the great day work of the earth is done with men, the Sabbath will begin, in which a generation of tranquil worshippers will spread over the earth, no longer striving after perishable treasures, but seeking those which are eternal; a people whose whole life will be devoted to the improvement of their mental powers, and to the worship of the Creator in spirit and in truth. Then the day will arrive in which the angels will say, 'Peace upon Earth!!!'"

This edition of Queen Mab, that has led to the above quotation, bore the name of Brooks as publisher. It contains a beautiful frontispiece illustrative of the death of Ianthe, and as a motto, the well-known line from some Greek dramatist —probably Eschylus—which may be rendered:

Give me whereon to stand, I’ll move the earth.

Brooks did, or does, live at the bottom of Oxford Street, and I paid him more than one visit. He had a correspondent at Marlow, who knew Shelley, but whose name I have forgotten, from whom he obtained a copy of Queen Mab, which, like the Wandering Jew, had probably been left by Shelley's inadvertence in his abode here. This copy was exceedingly interlined, very much curtailed and modified, as by a specimen given in a fragment entitled the "Demon of the World," appended to "Alastor;" and what is still more important and worthy of remark, with the Notes torn out. The copy had been revised with great care, and as though Shelley had an intention at the time of bringing out a new edition, an idea which his neglect of his labour shews he soon abandoned. This emendated work is a great curiosity, and has scattered about the pages rude pen-and-ink drawings of the most fantastic kind, proving the abstraction of his mind during this pursuit. It was a comment that led me to many speculations, suggesting a deep sense of the obloquy of which he had made himself the victim, and betokening a fluctuation of purpose, a hesitation and doubt of himself and of the truth or policy of his theories. That Mr. Brooks (he was the publisher if not the printer of the Owenites) did not make use of the refacciamenti or pentimate in his numerous reprints of Queen Mab, may easily be conceived, for these very alterations were the only objectionable parts to him, and he would have thought it a sacrilege to have struck out a word of the original text, much less the notes. Queen Mab is indeed the gospel of the sect, and one of them told me, that he had found a passage in Scripture that unquestionably applied to Shelley, and that the word Shiloh was pronounced in the Hebrew precisely in the same manner as his name.

It is much to be desired that Mrs. Shelley should endeavor to obtain this Queen Mab of Mr. Brooks. I have no doubt that he would estimate it at a price far beyond my means, nor have I made any overtures to him for the purchase, invaluable as its acquisition would be to me at this moment."

Donald H. Reiman;

"Brooks, an Owenite publisher, produced a “very handsome edition,” priced 9s. (see ad reproduced in Shelley Library, 55). Its engraved title page omits the subtitle and mention of the notes and includes only the epigraph from Archimedes. It does, however, contain a striking vignette depicting Queen Mab calling forth the sleeping Ianthe’s spirit, which was drawn by Charles Landseer (son of the engraver John Landseer) and engraved by Edward James Portbury (who did much engraving for the gift books of the 1820’s and 1830’s). Brooks, who includes the dedicatory poem to Harriet (in the copies we have seen) and does not provide translation of the notes, took his text directly from [the] 1813 [edition], a unique copy of which he had obtained from Robert Madocks, Shelley’s handyman and the agent for his landlord in Marlow who had confiscated it years earlier in addition to other of the Shelley’s belongings left behind along with an unpaid balance. This copy contains Shelley’s draft revisions of Queen mab into Demon and other shorter pieces, which are mentioned above and which ended up in the hands of Forman and ultimately Pforzheimer.

Brook’s edition follows 1813 closely but not uncritically: rarely emending the text of the poem proper, it is somewhat freer with the notes, especially in revising Shelley’s grammar and in correcting errors in the foreign language passages (once in Note 17 even “correcting” back to the orginal an intentional change Shelley made in Horace’s Latin). Several of these changes were transmitted through Ascham to Mary Shelley’s editions. Perhaps Brooks’s most significant textual gaffe in editing the poem comes in VIII.232-33, where, misunderstanding Shelley’s grammar, he initiates three misguided emendations (“extends / Its…wields” for “extend / Their wield”) that were also transmitted through Ascham to Mary Shelley. Beyond this textual important edition, Brooks’s influence on the transmission of Queen Mab extended in 1833 to his acquiring the stock and stereotyped plates of Mrs. Carlile’s 1832 piracy, which first printed the notes as footnotes to the poem, at the bottom of the page. Brooks published this pocket-sized edition under his own name for the price of 1s 6d., and from him the plates seem to have passed on to Hetherington and Watson, who continued to make Queen Mab widely available to the lower classes."

Saturday, 1 November 2008

Dusty Diary Delivers Dates

The following is a transcription of papers which appear to be from the diary of Elizabeth Brooks nee Steggall 1790-:

Copy of notes from a diary found at 27 Hornsey Rise Gdns, & lent to us by Edith.

I met Madame de Rausman at Mr Morgan’s 1834 Jan 6th. [poss. John Minter Morgan]
Mrs. Robinson was married to Mr. Taylor Jan 17th, 1834. [Rev. Robert Taylor 1784-1844]
Mr. Julian Hibbert died Jan 22nd, 1834. [Born 1801, atheist]

[from The Gentleman's Magazine Published by F. Jefferies, 1834]

My first visit to Jersey with Harriet Aug 20th, 1834. [Harriet Brooks,b.1832, Elizabeth's daughter]
My second visit to Jersey & called at the Isle of Wight Aug 18th, 1836.
Mr. Thomber first attendance on Harriet Oct 11th 1837, and continued his visits twice a week till April 1st 1839.
Began to strengthen Feb 15th, 1839. Began to walk Aug 1st, 1839.
Frederic returned to Jersey Nov 15th, 1837. [Frederic Brooks, Elizabeth's son]
J. Brooks at Mr. Greenfells April 21st, 1838. [John Brooks, Husband]
J. Brooks set off to Bologne May 1838.
J. Brooks Guernsey July 6th, 1838.
Paid a visit to Mr. Watts at Ditton July 29th, 1838.
Mr. & Mrs. Hooper came to London the same week.
J.B set off to Jersey Aug 10th, 1838. [John Brooks]
J.B returned home Nov 24th, 1838.
Fred Brooks sailed in the Iris to Newfoundland Sept 22nd, 1838.
Returned home Jan 21st, 1839.
J.B set off to Jersey Feb 11th, 1839 and returned to London Feb 23rd, 1839.
We arrived in Jersey May 19th, 1839.
Mr. M & Mrs. Broomfield came Sept 21st, 1839.
Mr, & Mrs. Barlow came Nov 1st, 1839.
Left about the end of the year 1840.
My beloved sister Fanny married Feb 27th, 1820.
Elizabeth Matilda Clara born Dec 30th, 1820, her only child.
On the 10th of January 1826 my dear sister with her husband & child were lost off the Texel coming from Bolivia to Amsterdam. [Texel= island on Dutch coast]
Frederic came home Feb, 1840, left March 30th, 1841.
Mr. & Mrs. V.B. May 1841. [Vincent Brooks]
Fred left May 4th, 1841.
Harriet christened at St. Aubins Church May 13th, 1841. [Jersey]
Miss [Elizabeth] Beard came June 6th, 1841.
Miss Rogers came June 7th, 1841.
Mrs. V.B. returned July 30th, 1841.
Mrs. V.B returned to Jersey Feb 28th, 1842.
Myself and Harriet left for France April 24th, 1842.
Miss Rogers returned to London May 27th, 1842.
Left Tours for Jersey June 4th, 1842, got home the 7th, found Vincent who had come to take home poor Mary, they set off June 10th, 1842, and my poor girl died August 3rd, 1842. [Death of Mary Ann Brooks nee Wybrow]
Harriet left Jersey for the convent at Valonges July 7th, 1843. [Benedictine convent]
Left Jersey with Mr. Harrison for London March 1844.
Set off from Tower for Valonges April 21st, 1844. Via Le Havre.
My second visit to Tour June 7th, 1844. Mr. Taylor died about 7th June 1844. [Rev R Taylor]
Brought Harriet home for holidays from convent August 17th, 1845.
Harriet returned for good in September 1846.
Left St. Aubins Xmas 1845. Took Millbrook Cottage Xmas 1845.
Left Millbrook Cottage Xmas 1849.
Visited London May 1850 with Harriet and took my Alfred home. [Alfred Brooks, her Grandson, aged 3?]
Harriet set off for London May 17th, 1851.
H. Brooks left Jersey for London September 12th, 1851 and returned with Harriet Oct 11th, 1851.[poss. mistake? J. Brooks]
I paid a visit to Mrs. Taylor in Cumberland and returned October 11th, 1851.
M.S. died June 1851.
Fred’s children:
Harriet Brooks born Sept 9th, 1847.
Margaret Jane Brooks, Aug 19th, 1849.
Frederic 29th April 1853 in Quebec.

Thursday, 8 November 2007

Sentenced to Death

It was around one o'clock in the morning on the 10th of February 1818.
At 421 Oxford Street an arm reached in through a previously broken window...

Read the full story here.

Sunday, 28 October 2007

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