The Printshop Window

~ Caricature & Graphic Satire in the Long Eighteenth-Century

The Printshop Window

Monthly Archives: June 2014

Guest Post: “They quarreled somehow” – G.S. Tregear & C.J. Grant

29 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by theprintshopwindow in C.J. Grant, G.S. Tregear

≈ 1 Comment

The_Political_Drama_110_page

In their second article for The Print Shop Window, Mike and Daphne Tregear discuss the troubled relationship between the printseller and publisher G.S. Tregear and the caricaturist Charles Jameson Grant. 

In July 1835 Grant published No. 110 in ʻThe Political Dramaʼ series (above). This series had started in 1833 and wasThe_Political_Drama_110_quote published until 1836, running to 131 weekly sheets. The print is divided into two vertical panels. The right hand panel (detail, right) lampoons King Louis Philippe as a ʻRotten Eggʼ and he is shown as a Humpty Dumpty figure sitting on a wall. In the background is a hill on which a guillotine has been erected and a building named as The Bastile. Below there are three columns of satirical prose and below that a sentence which reads:

C. J. G. takes opportunity of informing the inhabitants of Paris, and its vicinity, that he has no connexion in his capacity as artist, with one Gabriel Shire Tregear, publisher, of London, for some time past, and solemnly prays he may never again.

He was informing the inhabitants of Paris of this rift within the context of the larger panel; he was also, of course, informing the whole of the print readership. What is clear from this statement is that Grant put a great distance between himself as the creator of well-known and widely distributed images, and Tregear, with whom he been a long-time collaborator.

The working relationship between Tregear and Grant can be illustrated by the fact that in 1830 Tregear published at least two prints which are identified as being by Grant. These are ʻAll A Gog at Guildhallʼ and ʻFrench Mode of Proceeding Ex Officioʼ. In 1831 this number rose to 13 prints, in 1832 to 17 prints and in 1833 there were 7 prints. In addition, the authors have found five which are undated, but are clearly by Grant. The prints vary in content from the classic political commentary prints of the time focussing on the reform acts, through to the simply frivolous and entertaining. Whether the prints are the result of collaboration between caricaturist and publisher as, for example, ʻThe Robin Hood Family of Archersʼ, where there is a joint claim to authorship, or merely a commercial transaction with Tregear specifying the print’s content, is not clear.

Grant's_Oddities_1

Grant's_Oddities_panelWhat is certain, however, is that Grant did value his association with Tregear and took pains to both publish this association and exploit it – at least for a period of their relationship. Grant, along with a number of other satirists of the period, finds the claims by Morrison for his vegetable pills a pure absurdity. Both Grant’s ʻOddities No. 1ʼ (left) and Grantʼs ʻOddities No. 8ʼ, published by Kendrick, poke fun at the potential effects of vegetable pills. On print No. 1 Grant used the opportunity to claim to be ʻAuthor of Tregearʼs Flights of Humour &c &cʼ. The claim is placed prominently in the panel [*] in the top right hand corner of the print (it is more clearly seen on the back and white copy of this print in the Lewis Walpole Library).

Tregear’s ʻFlights of Humourʼ was the longest series both in terms of time and number which he published. They are largely undated, although sporadically they are, and the authors have been able to trace the series, although not all of the titles, from 1 to 95. And again, not all of the prints are signed by Grant. Tregear and, later, Tregear and Lewis, were not always the best at quality control in terms of numbering, so it is possible that there are unused numbers. The earliest are Nos. 2 and 3 from 1830, No.10 in 1831, No.18 in 1832, Nos. 27, 30, 32, and 33 in 1833, No. 37 in 1834, No. 50 in 1835, Nos. 52 and 53 in 1836 and No. 60 in 1839.

If the rift in the relationship between Grant and Tregear as advertised by Grant on ʻThe Political Drama No. 110ʼ is as final and abrupt as Grant implies, then it is unlikely that Grant can be the author of the whole series. Possibly, he provided material up to No. 50 and thereafter a new author or authors were found to continue the series. Or, that the split between the two men was not final, and they did reform their association. However the authors have not seen any evidence that the relationship did revive.

In conclusion, it is of interest to note that the disagreement between the two men did lodge in the public consciousness. While responding to an article about Cleave in ʻNotes and Queriesʼ in February 1870, a correspondent, Mr. Lamb, makes the following remark “Earlier than any of the above dates, namely, in 1833, I find Mr. Grant’s name to a coloured caricature published by G. S. Tregear, ʻThe Robin Hood Family, or Archers of 1833’, and, I believe Mr. Tregear published many coloured caricatures for him. They quarrelled somehow, and I recollect of a very personal correspondence between them”. How do we get to a better understanding?


Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the kind permission of the Working Class Movement Library, Salford, for permission to reproduce images of ʻThe Political Drama No. 110ʼ.

Guest Post: Tregear’s Rum Jokes

25 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by theprintshopwindow in G.S. Tregear

≈ 7 Comments

Tregears scraps

This post is the first in a short series of articles by Mike and Daphne Tregear on the life and works of their ancestor; the publisher and printseller Gabriel Shire Tregear (c.1801 – 1841). The illustrations attached to this article are taken from the extensive collection of Tregear’s prints which Mike and Daphne have amassed over the course of the last twenty years and include a number of extremely rare items. 

Gabriel Shire Tregear died in 1841 having published hundreds of prints as singly-issued sheets.  While there were ‘one-off’ topics among these sheets, particularly political caricatures published before the Reform Act was passed in 1832, the output during the 1830s included many series of single sheets with the same title numbered consecutively. Presumably Tregear was hoping to generate repeat custom with this practice. The series included ‘Flights of Humour’, ‘Comic Sketches’, ‘Laughing made Easy’, ‘The Odd Volume’, ‘Fancy Sketches’, ‘Flowers of Ugliness’, ‘Sea Songs’, ‘School of Design’, ‘Humorous Sketches’, ‘Merry Thoughts’, ‘Flowers of Loveliness’, ‘Life in Philadelphia’ and ‘Black Jokes’, and the series which is discussed here, ‘Rum Jokes’.

The ‘Rum Jokes’ series of prints has 43 as the highest number which the authors have been able to find. The series started asRum_Joke_1 ‘Tregear’s Rum Jokers’ which is used for the first (right) and second only, after which they are consistently named ‘Rum Jokes’. The topics are split almost evenly between those which are hunting-, shooting-, and fishing-related and those which cover other topics including racing events, skating, billiards and the building trade. None of the prints has a named illustrator or printer but there is clearly more than one hand involved in the designs over the period that the prints are published. None of them bear a date, but it is worth noting that all of the ‘Rum Jokes’ were published during Tregear’s lifetime and none was ever reissued by Tregear and Lewis (his widow Ann Tregear, in partnership with Thomas Crump Lewis, carried on the business after Gabriel’s death until they fell out, spectacularly, in 1844).

While some have an image illustrating a play on words, e.g. no. 4 ‘Twine Gentle Evergreen, A Catch’ which has a black man caught against the trunk of a tree by a large snake, others are simple observations of daily life. So, for example, no. 27 shows a male skater falling backwards though a hole in the ice while young women stand on the bank and observe. The caption is ‘Infernal hole just as I was shewing them Gals how I could do it’.

Rum_Joke_7For a short run of prints, all related to hunting with horses (nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11, see the example to the left), there is a secondary title close to the image of ‘Billy Blow’d’ while the caption below the image starts ‘I’m Blow’d’.

Tregear brought these prints out in two grades, hand-coloured and plain, which was typical of this time in print publishing. When they have been coloured the print is on a fairly good quality stiff paper, whereas the plain are on softer, thinner, yellow or pink paper. They were all lithographs. The authors have failed to find any advertisements for ‘Rum Jokes’ as yet, but ‘Flights of Humour’ which overlapped the former’s publication sequence were advertised as 6 pence plain and 1 shilling coloured. ‘Rum Jokes’ are typical of the cheap end of the market with no detail drawn which is superfluous to getting the joke across; there is none of the carefully drawn background that one would find in, say, a Thomas McLean print.

For the most part the characters and the subject of the prints are stock figures. The inexperienced rider, the city clerk in his shooting attire and the country bumpkin in his smock are all represented. However in a few cases a historical figure can be identified. In no.10 the image is captioned by the the phrase ‘I’m blowed if they think I’m Ducrow’. Ducrow was a famous equestrian who in 1824 took over the management of Phillip Astley’s Amphitheatre where large scale and impressive dramas like Mazeppa were staged. Needless to say the rider in the print is clearly not in control of his horse.

On number 37 (right), which is only one of two prints in the series which have an overtly political flavour, there is the scene ofRum_Joke_37 three men standing or sitting around a table in a tavern. Each is smoking a long stemmed clay pipe and drinking from a glass or tankard. The man standing is holding a large key aloft. Below the image the caption is:

Corporation Abuses. Pray Sir, what do you call corporation abuses, Why drinking Small Beer and Bad Spirits to be sure.

Smug and contented, holding the key to the local authority treasury, our three representatives are shown living a good life at the expense of the local tax payer. In 1833, after years of pressure from electors up and down the country, the House of Commons sets up a Select Committee to investigate and consider the abuses of power and the use of local tax revenues by local corporations. One of the many acknowledged abuses was the regular use of funds to hold banquets and feasts. As a result of the enquiry the Corporation Act of 1835 is passed. This print is part of the public debate prior to the setting up of the committee.

Rum_Joke_38On number 38 (left) the names of Clay and Lushington are used.  The caption is ‘Independent Electors.’ which goes on to read as a conversation between two dustmen as ‘I say Bob who does you vote for, Vy I votes for Clay and I votes for Lushington’. These two men were elected to Parliament in 1832 as members for the then newly created constituency of Tower Hamlets. Sir William Clay was a Liberal who represented this seat from 1832 to 1868. Stephen Lushington was a radical and known anti-slavery activist who represented the constituency until 1841.

Taking these two prints together it can be suggested that prints up to no. 37 were printed before 1832/33 while those after no. 38 were printed after 1832/33. However, from no. 34 upwards the address of Tregear’s shop changes from 123 Cheapside to 96 Cheapside. We know that he occupied number 123 from 1828 to 1835 and that in 1834 he took a twenty one year lease on 96 Cheapside. So perhaps a better date for publication of those with numbers above 34 is 1834.

It is rare for Tregear to use material more than once in his publications. However in the case of no. 23 (right) he has taken one part of a much larger and complicated print and used it as the sole image for the print. The print is titled ‘The celebrated old horse BlisterRum_Joke_23 rode by Patch doing a match against time’ (below). It shows a rider with very heavily patched coat and trousers, his stirruped leg bound in bandages and a patch over one eye riding an equally decrepit horse. The larger print is ‘A Regular Out and Out Steeple Chase’ which is a parody of professional steeple chasing circles in that the riders are all poorly dressed trades and working men while the horses are nags. This print is dated April 1833.

The double entendre in the title of these jokes was also intended to bring a wry smile to the lips and alert the purchaser to its contents. The Oxford English Dictionary lists ‘rum’ as originally a cant term meaning good, high quality, excellent, extraordinary, great. This meaning dated back to the sixteenth century. In the late eighteenth century  ‘rum’ acquired an opposite colloquial meaning of odd, strange and also bad, spurious, suspect. Dickens used the term in Pickwick Papers: ‘There’s rummer things than women in this world though, mind you’. So, Tregear used a ‘wicked’ title for some jokes!

A_Regular_Out_and_Out_Steeple_Chase

The authors have been unable, yet, to trace any record of prints in this series with the numbers 9, 12, 21, 22, 25, 33 and 41. There is a copy of no. 24 in the British Museum collection.

There may well be more ‘Rum Jokes’ past number 43 which have yet to be identified. Any information on these, or those missing numbers below 43, would be gratefully received.

– Mike & Daphne Tregear


Appendix

Below are short titles for ‘Rum Jokes’:

No.1                      I say fellow what have you got, Oysters Sir

No.2                      Doctor, You are much better I see

No.3                      Wot are you sowing grass seed for, Mum

No.4                      Twine Gentle Evergreen

No.5                      A Union Jack

No.6                      The Quick and the Dead

No.7                      I’m blow’d if he han’t a looking

No.8                      I’m blow’d if I know how to Get him off

No.9

No.10                    I’m blow’d if they think Im Ducrow

No.11                    I’m blow’d if he don’t want a little water

No.12

No.13                    Sweet sweet Eh!

No.14                    Now then John you fool

No.15                    I say why didn’t you shoot that are

No.16                    A Duck by Jingo

No.17                    I wonder if that’s game

No.18                    Lucky thought this of mine to lay down

No.19                    I never look’d better in all my Life

No.20                    The Last Struggle

No.21

No.22

No.23                    The celebrated old horse Blister

No.24                    See BM 1991.0615.97

No.25                    One or two more shots, I think I will have him down (see comments)

No.26                    I don’t think you ever was shot

No.27                    Infernal hole

No.28                    That’s a beautifull Cannon Tom

No.29                    Well Sam do you see any thing?

No.30                    Vell Sam this is just vot I enjoy

No.31                    Only stop till I’ve dine’d my Pigeon

No.32                    Well you ass vot do you see

No.33

No.34                    Pray have you seen such a thing

No.35                    Hark, I thinks I hear Bow Bells

No.36                    The Enthusiast

No.37                    Corporation abuses

No.38                    Independent Electors

No.39                    Coming it Strong

No.40                    Want a coach to Maiden Lane

No.41

No.42                    Have you caught many

No.43                    Wy dang it Hodge 

Richard Newton’s Obituary

19 Thursday Jun 2014

Posted by theprintshopwindow in Richard Newton, William Holland

≈ 1 Comment

newton

The works of the teenage caricaturist Richard Newton have grown immensely popular in the fifteen years which have elapsed since they were ‘rediscovered’ by David Alexander in the excellent biography he produced to accompany an exhibition at the University of Manchester. Newton’s grotesquely exaggerated style of caricature and his penchant for the crude and the politically confrontational, has led many collectors to seize upon his work as being exemplary of late eighteenth-century British newton1caricature at its best. The popularity and comparative rarity of many of Newton’s most famous prints means that their value is often second only to that of the Gillray’s most coveted designs, with a copy of A Bugaboo!!! fetching just over £2,000 at the last major sale of caricatures held by Bonham’s auction house in 2010.

Newton died on the morning of the 9th December 1798 at the age of just 21. He had probably been unwell for several months, although the precise nature of this illness and the cause of death remain a mystery. David Alexander notes that a brief obituary appeared in the London Oracle of 14th December, which was the day of Newton’s funeral, and in the monthly edition of the Gentlemen’s Magazine [1]. I believe I may have also uncovered another obituary, published two days before the notice appeared in the Oracle which contains one hitherto unrecorded fact about the enigmatic young caricaturist’s life. This obituary appeared in the Hereford Journal of Wednesday 12th December 1798 and it describes Newton as “a native of Dormington, in this county”. If this assertion could be proven to be correct then it would significantly alter what little we know of Newton’s background, as he is typically thought of as being a native Londoner, the potential son of a haberdasher named Richard Newton who was resident in Brydges Street Covent Garden at the time of the 1784 Westminster election. Newton may well have been the son of a Herefordshire man who relocated to the metropolis sometime after his birth in 1779.

The full obituary reads:

On Sunday morning died, in the 21st year of his age, Mr Richard Newton, Caricaturist and Miniature-painter, of Brydges-street, Covent Garden, London – a native of Dormington in this county. His natural abilities and fertile genius promised a rapid course to first-rate eminence in his profession : and his early loss will be long regretted by his relations, friends and numerous acquaintances.  


Notes

[1.] Alexander speculates that Newton may have died from tuberculosis. David Alexander, Richard Newton and English Caricature in the 1790s, 1998, p. 54 f.106.

Paint, property and prints – S.W. Fores in the small ads

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by theprintshopwindow in S.W. Fores, The trade in caricature prints

≈ 2 Comments

Fores shop

Attributed to Isaac & George Cruikshank, Folkstone Strawberries or more carraway comfits for Mary Ann, 1810, Shows the front of S.W. Fores’ shop at the corner of Sackville Street and Picadilly – Note that the majority of the items shown in the window are books rather than prints.

Here’s what the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has to say about the printseller S.W. Fores;

Fores, Samuel William (bap. 1761, d. 1838), publisher and printseller, was baptized on 29 March 1761 at St Benet Fink, Threadneedle Street, London, the son of Samuel Fores (b. 1738), a stationer and bookseller of the Savoy, Strand, and his wife, Mary, née Allington. In 1783 S. W. Fores founded a business as a printseller specializing in hand-coloured, singly-issued satirical prints or caricatures ‘at the City Arms, No. 3 Piccadilly near the Hay Market’, in the heart of London’s West End, and soon came to dominate the trade in such prints alongside William Holland (who started business almost concurrently), Hannah Humphrey, and a number of other minor competitors. The Fores–Holland–Humphrey triumvirate thrived during the era of the French Revolution when James Gillray, Thomas Rowlandson, and Isaac Cruikshank were at the peak of their activity, a period considered the ‘golden age’ of English graphic satire. The prolific Fores and Holland, the latter of whom was more radically inclined politically, were particular rivals, and both frequently resorted to hyperbolic notices on their prints advertising exhibitions and new prints. In 1789 Fores announced an exhibition that was ‘the largest in the kingdom’ and later a ‘Grand Caricatura Exhibition … Containing the most complete Collection of Humorous, Political and Satirical Prints and Drawings, Ever exposed to public view in this kingdom’. Fores even advertised lurid attractions to outdo Holland such as a 6 foot working model of the guillotine and the ‘head and hand of the unfortunate Count Struenzee, who was beheaded at Denmark’ (perhaps only a death mask).

In 1795 Fores moved to larger premises at no. 50 Piccadilly, on the corner of Sackville Street. The number was changed to 41 about 1820, presumably as a result of the Regent Street development planned by John Nash. A watercolour painted in 1853 by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd shows the premises. Fores outlasted Holland, who died in 1815, but he experienced major new competition from the likes of Rudolph Ackermann, who sold various satirical prints alongside topographical aquatints to a fashionable clientele; Thomas Tegg, who went downmarket and drastically reduced the price of his prints; and later Thomas McLean, who embraced lithography, and published William Heath and John ‘HB’ Doyle. Fores, it seems, was particularly innovative in marketing his prints, selling them wholesale and retail, and was one of the first to hire out folios of caricatures for the evening. Notably Fores started selling large collections of caricatures, and those prints stamped with the initials ‘S. W. F.’ probably derive from such collections or are those prints that were hired out. There are collections with the ‘S. W. F.’ stamp in the Reform Club, London, and the Anthony de Rothschild collection, Ascott, Wing, Buckinghamshire. A surviving handbill now in the department of prints and drawings of the British Museum headed ‘Roxburgh Collection of Caricatures’ advertises for sale a collection ‘bound in 24 uniform Volumes’ at 250 guineas. Prints were also available to buy ready prepared for screens, assorted for folios, and arranged for scrapbooks.

Fores also offered other services such as frame-making and teaching etching, and he kept a large stock of art supplies. He published drawing books and had a drawing library ‘where prints and drawings are lent to copy’. Fores’s business at this stage has echoes of Ackermann’s luxurious Repository of the Arts in the Strand and he was clearly looking to diversify as a result of competition and waning caricature sales. Some of the best prints that Fores published were by Gillray between 1787 and 1791, before his monopoly by Humphrey, and his imprint is found on Gillray’s Monstrous Craws, A March to the Bank, and The Hopes of the Party. Fores also published Gillray’s portrait of the prime minister William Pitt, but surviving correspondence reveals that this resulted in some acrimony. Although most of Fores’s output was not unsympathetic to the Pitt regime, Fores was nevertheless briefly arrested in 1796 for selling Gillray’s The Presentation, or, The Wise Men’s Offering—actually published by Humphrey—which was deemed a blasphemous libel, reminding him of the limits of acceptable subject matter and the risks involved in publishing satirical material. The period is notable for its severe censorship and the gagging of radical expression.

Fores published work by numerous artists but seems to have dealt most consistently with Isaac Cruikshank and in 1797 he also had brief dealings with the youthful and talented Richard Newton, publishing together at least five prints. Fores’s address is also found on a number of prints relating to the Queen Caroline affair of 1819–20, which provoked a great outpouring of satirical material. Fores probably deserves the distinction of being the most prolific publisher of singly-issued satirical prints and also as the founder of one of London’s longest running firm of printsellers.

Fores married twice and had numerous children (either fourteen or seventeen), some with curious patriotic names: following Trafalgar a son was christened Horatio Nelson and in 1814 another was called Arthur Blücher, in honour of the conquerors of Napoleon. His first wife, Elizabeth (b. 1758/9), died in 1797. His second wife, Jane (1772/3–1840), actively looked after the shop and was apparently popular with the customers (who included such notables as the duke of Queensberry, Sir Francis Burdett, Nelson, and the exiled duke of Orléans, Louis Philippe). In addition to his publishing and printing work, Fores also published Fores’s New Guide for Foreigners (c.1790) and wrote a treatise entitled Man-Midwifery Dissected under the pseudonym John Blunt in 1793. Fores died on 3 February 1838, and was buried in the family vault on the Jermyn Street side of St James’s, Piccadilly.

So far, so conventional. Scholars specialising in the history of print have tended to alight on a similar interpretation of Fores career, defining him by his involvement in the publication of caricatures and presenting him as the owner of one of late eighteenth-century London’s archetypal satirical printshops. This is certainly understandable, given that Fores’ caricatures have enjoyed a far more enduring legacy than his non-satirical prints, but how accurate is it? Data gathered from Rudolph Ackermann’s ledgers indicates that publishers rarely confined their activities to one area of the market and often pursued other commercial opportunities that were wholly unrelated to the print trade. So just how significant were caricatures to Fores’ business? Did he have other business interests? And what implications would a re-reading of Fores’ commercial activities have on our wider understanding of the market for printed satire in this period?

These were questions that I first began to ask myself a couple of years ago when I was in the middle of a project to map the evolving geography of Georgian London’s print trade. Looking through a number of contemporary trade directories, I was struck by how few of the names that I had always associated with the trade in caricature prints had chosen to primarily identify themselves as printsellers. James Asperne, Samuel Tipper, William Hone and even Thomas Tegg, all chose to identify themselves as booksellers first and foremost, while S.W. Fores labelled himself as a purveyor of books and stationery in the London directories for 1808 and 1819. All of which started to make me wonder whether the business of satirical printselling was far more varied and complex than we’d previously been led to believe.

The lack of surviving source material relating to the commercial aspects of the print trade in this period is notorious, and in reality it is very difficult to draw any conclusion on the nature, extent and scale of an individual printsellers business. However, one potential source of information which has yet to be thoroughly mined are newspaper advertisements, as these give an indication of the kind of goods printsellers sold and the parts of the country in which their wares were being offered for sale. I therefore turned to the British Newspaper Archive, which contains digitised copies of some 253 metropolitan newspapers published over the last 200 years (although sadly not the Times of London, which was perhaps the most widely circulated British newspaper in Fores day) and began searching for S.W. Fores.

My search turned up approximately 30 advertisements which had been taken out by Fores between 1792 and 1828. What was both immediately apparent and extremely surprising, was the almost total absence of any mention of satirical prints in these advertisements. Caricature prints are mentioned in only a single advertisement, placed in the Morning Chronicle of 28th October 1817, which lists the plates due to appear in the forthcoming issue of The Busy Body, a satirical magazine illustrated by Charles Williams and jointly published by James Johnston and Fores [1]. Fores’ caricatures also feature in a number of articles published in separate newspapers during February 1802, but these references relate to the civil action he was pursuing against Thomas Johnes MP and were not produced for commercial purposes [2]. Johnes had ordered copies of Fores entire catalogue of prints and asked them to be sent up to his family estate in Wales. Unfortunately, the MP changed his mind soon after receiving the prints and attempted to return them. Fores however insisted that the items could not be returned as they had already been bound into albums and as such the payment of £137 10s was still outstanding. The judge referred the case onto a jury but warned Fores that he should not expect to receive payment for any items “as might be of an obscene nature”.

Non-satirical prints were mentioned on a slightly more frequent basis, with a series of engraved views after Thomas Barrow’s drawings of “the noblemen and gentlemen’s seats in the vicinity of Egham” appearing in the Reading Mercury of 15th September 1800, and a subscription series of expensive prints and original drawings of scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar being advertised in the Oxford Journal on 15th March 1806. However, Fores was more likely to take out advertisements to publicise his latest books, stocks of stationery and other items of printed ephemera. These advertisements cover a wide range of items including maps of canal networks, the letters of the noted eccentric Philip Thicknesse, a dummies guide to musket drill, ladies pen box and printed sets of toy soldiers. The advertisement for the latter, which appeared in the Morning Chronicle on 13th December 1804, reads:

Fores Military Figures. Invented by Colonel West, and recommended by His Royal Highness the Duke of York, as a necessary machine for Gentlemen in the Army, Volunteer Corps, Marines & c. Exhibiting on a table every manoeuvre in military tactics by a battalion, or larger body of troops; it is also very interesting amusement for young Gentlemen in general, and particularly those inclined to a military life, battalions of 10 companies, 15 files coloured, with officers, colours &c., and book of instructions in mahogany box, one guinea. Published by S.W. Fores, sole proprietor, corner of Sackville Street and to be had of all the bookshops and toyshops. – Morning Post

The adverts containing no reference to print-related goods were perhaps the most interesting of all, as they cast further light on the full extent of Fores business activities and the types of customers that visited his shop. One of the most common forms of advertisement to appear were those in which Fores was named as the agent of individuals, often from the provinces, who wanted to conduct some form of business in the metropolis. A typical example of this sort of advertisement comes from the Morning Post of 6th July 1802:

TO PARENTS and GUARDIANS – UNION SEMINARY, Kensington Gravel Pits – G.E. MORTON, a long time conversant in the Tuition of Youth, both in France and England… has taken a commodious house in the above mentioned situation, proverbial for the salubrity of its air, the delectableness of its circumjacent walks, and pleasing vicinity to town; where he proposes Boarding and Instructing Twenty Young Gentlemen in the English, French, Latin and Greek Languages; Arithmetic, Book-Keeping, Geography, Use of Globes, History, Chronology, Elocution, Rhetoric, Logic and Mathematics… Cards of terms may be had at Mr Fores, corner of Sackville Street Piccadilly. 

And another from the 30th November 1803 edition of the same newspaper:

WINDSOR FOREST – To be LETT, Furnished in the centre of the Royal Hunt, a complete COTTAGE; consisting of three parlours, four bed-rooms, a closet, store-room, kitchen, and other conveniences; a small pleasure garden goes round the house, a kitchen garden adjoins, and a small paddock; a poultry-yard, in which is another cottage, containing two servants bedrooms… A lease granted and furniture taken at a fair valuation. Address, post-paid, to Mr Fores, corner of Sackville-street, Piccadilly.

Fores was presumably chosen to act as the agent in such matters because his shop was known to be frequented by the sort of reasonably affluent individuals who could be expected to show an interest in purchasing a substantial smallholding in the country, or send their children away from home to receive a formal education. The adverts also indicate that Fores name must have been known beyond the immediate confines of London and could potentially give some indication of the geographic extent of his commercial dealings.

Further evidence of a predominantly middle-class clientele can be found in the advertisements relating to the various medicinal remedies that were sold over the counter at No. 50 Piccadilly. An advertisement in the Morning Chronicle of 7th February 1801, lists Fores among the principle retailers of WALKER’S STOMACHICAL WINE… an immediate and infallible remedy [for]… bilious complaint in the stomach or bowels”, which was particularly suitable for “weak and sickly children, and those troubled with worms.” The product in question was manufactured by the printseller Elizabeth Walker from her premises at No. 7 Cornhill and sold through a variety of metropolitan and provincial outlets at the reassuringly expensive price of 10s 6d per bottle [3]. This kind of product must have been quite popular because Fores was still hawking dubious tonics eight years later, when he was once again named as a principle retailer of “HORWOOD WELL MEDICINAL WATER… a remedy hitherto unequaled in mitigating the effects of… alkali, lead, or mercury… on persons of beauty, rank and fashion”, offered at the more affordable price of 2s 6d a bottle. These adverts not only demonstrate that Fores dealt in a far wider range of goods than has hitherto been imagined, but also that his clientele was almost certainly drawn from the ranks of the educated, affluent, upper-middle classes. This further challenges the attempts which some historians have made to portray the satirical printshop as an egalitarian commercial space, or caricature prints themselves as an inherently democratic form of popular art.

The advertisements also reveal that Fores was involved the in the running of the British Wholesome and Cheap Paint Company for a period of almost twenty years. The first advert for the company appears in the Morning Post in October 1805, with subsequent advertisements being placed in metropolitan and provincial newspapers during 1806, 1808 and 1815. As the name suggests, the enterprise was responsible for the manufacture and sale of exterior and interior house paints which it was claimed “will never, crack, blister, or peel off” and which came “without any unwholesome smell, and of the most brilliant and durable colours…”. So confident were the owners of the quality of their product that they invited prospective customers to visit Fores shop at 50 Piccadilly, which had been decorated with the paint and “may be seen as a specimen” [4]. The British Wholesome and Cheap Paint Company operated from premises located at 21 Mary-le-bone street, Golden Square and was initially a joint enterprise run by Fores and a Mr Van Herman. Later advertisements indicate that a Mr Mitchell was added as a third partner sometime around 1808 and by 1815 the company was trading under the new name of Fores and Mitchell. It continued under that moniker until December 1822, when the entry “S.W. Fores and B. Mitchell – Paint Manufacturers” appears among a list of dissolved business partnerships published in the Morning Post [5.] There’s no firm evidence which links the British Wholesome and Cheap Paint Company to Fores work as a publisher of satirical prints, but it’s certainly possible that some of the items sold from 21 Mary-le-bone Street could also have been used in the engraving or decorating of prints. An advertisement from 1815 states that the company dealt in “all manner of items for painting” and sold “white lead, turps and linseed oils” which were articles used to mix colours for prints and in the preperation of copperplates for etching [6].

The advertisements which carry Fores’ name clearly indicate that he was involved in a far broader range of business activities than he is typically given credit for and that he was by no means singularly involved in the publication and sale of caricature prints. Indeed, the evidence gathered here indicates that caricatures may only have constituted a minor part of Fores business activities and certainly seemed to warrant much less advertising space than his books, stationery or non-satirical prints. This need to spread business risk across a variety of different products and industries, hints at a market for printed goods which was characterised by a degree of volatility, requiring printsellers to branch out into secondary lines of investment which could be relied upon to provide bring in alternate lines of revenue. It’s also interesting to note that the diversification of Fores business portfolio seems to begun during the mid-1800s, which is typically thought of as the time at which established West End publishers began to come under increasing pressure from Thomas Tegg’s tidal wave of cut-price prints and books. Whatever the explanation, it does seem certain that Fores and his contemporaries worked in a far more nuanced business environment than the image of the brightly decorated printshop windows which appear in many contemporary caricatures would have us believe.


Notes

[1]. Johnston’s name appears alongside that of Fores in a number advertisements taken out during the 1810s and they appear to have collaborated on a variety of publishing projects during that time.

[2] The story was reported in various provincial newspapers, including the Sailsbury and Winchester Journal, the Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, the Staffordshire Advertiser and the Caledonian Mercury. This may indicate that Fores name was familiar to educated readers living outside the metropolis and thus give us some indication of his links to the provincial market for printed goods, although we should not rule out the possibility of the episode being widely publicised simply because it involved a Member of Parliament.

[3.] To put the price of this product into context, W.H.R. Cutler, A Short History of English Agriculture, (Oxford, 1909) estimates the average labourer earned 11s per week between 1800 and 1808. An advertisement for a wine merchant which appeared in the Morning Chronicle of 31st October 1801 also indicates that one could purchase a dozen bottles of muscatel wine for 11s 6d.

[4.] Morning Post, 29th October 1805. 

[5.] Ibid., 16th December 1822.

[6.] Ibid., 16th August 1815.

The Bowl of Liberty

08 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by theprintshopwindow in Caricature and material culture, James Gillray

≈ Leave a comment

French Liberty Bowl

Friench Liberty, [sic] Liverpool pearlware bowl, after Gillray. c.1792.

You may remember a post which appeared on this blog some time ago, in which we looked at a nice example of a creamware tankard that had been decorated with the one half of James Gillray’s French Liberty / British Slavery. It was particularly interesting to note that while the British half of this design appears to have been taken up and used by a number of provincial potteries, surviving examples of ceramics carrying French Liberty were far more rare. Indeed, David Drakard was only able to locate a single example of Gillray’s image of the onion chomping sans-culotte when he came to compile his exhaustive catalogue of caricature-printed creamware in the early 1990s.

I was therefore feeling particularly pleased with myself when I ran across this little beauty in a local saleroom recently. It’s a blue and white pearlware bowl, measuring 23cms in diameter, decorated with a copy of French Liberty. This example illustrates quite nicely how potters were sometimes required to alter caricature designs in order to ensure that complicated compositions fit into the restricted space left available on pots for a decorative design. In this case the potter, evidently a craftsman of some skill, has shifted the background of the design to the left, omitting the bowl of onions that appears in the original print and placing the fireplace and map to the sans-culotte’s side. The central figure now sits in front of a cartouche that carries his ironic speech about swimming in “de Milk and Honey” of liberty. There are two other things that I particularly like about this design, firstly that the potter has taken it upon himself to make additions to Gillray’s original image, adding a sheet of music for the revolutionary anthem “Ca Ira” next to the violin at the Jacobin’s feet and a flag of liberty to his right. And secondly, that the potter’s tenuous grasp of the written word has caused him to misspell both the title of the design and the ‘Libertas’ logo which appears on the flag.

The transfer-printing process and the practical impact this had on caricature designs used on pots is a subject I plan to explore in more detail in my next post.

← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • C.J. Grant, The Caricaturist, A Monthly Show Up, 1831-1832
  • J.V. Quick, A Form of Prayer to be Said… Throughout the Land of Locusts, 1831
  • A Designing Character: A Biographical Sketch of Joseph Lisle (1798 – 1839)
  • Original works by John Collet (1728 – 1780)
  • The Origins of The Plumb-Pudding In Danger?

Recent Comments

Jonny Duval on C.J. Grant, The Caricaturist,…
theprintshopwindow on C.J. Grant, The Caricaturist,…
jonny duval on C.J. Grant, The Caricaturist,…
C.J. Grant, The Cari… on Guest Post: “They quarre…
C.J. Grant, The Cari… on Every Body’s Album &…

Archives

  • December 2022
  • December 2021
  • August 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • March 2020
  • January 2020
  • October 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013

Blogroll

  • Boston 1775
  • Cradled in Caricature
  • Francis Douce Collection Blog
  • Georgian Bawdyhouse
  • Georgian London
  • James Gillray: Caricaturist
  • Mate Sound the Pump
  • My Staffordshire Figures
  • Princeton Graphic Arts
  • The Droll Hackabout
  • The Lewis Walpole Library Blog
  • The Victorian Peeper
  • Yesterday's Papers

C18th caricatures for sale

  • Sale listings

Online resources

  • Resource archive

Useful sites

  • British Museum Collection Database
  • British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies
  • Brown University Collection of Napoleonic Satires
  • Locating London's Past
  • London Lives
  • Old Bailey Online
  • The South Sea Bubble Collection at Harvard Business School
  • Treasures of Cheatham's Library

Contact me

printshopwindow[at]gmail.com

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • The Printshop Window
    • Join 114 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Printshop Window
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...