A Biographical Sketch of James Aitken (fl. 1788 – 1803)

James Aitken was responsible for publishing around 100 satirical prints between 1788 and 1801. His early prints were often engraved by the likes of James Gillray and Isaac Cruikshank, but by 1793-4 he was chiefly associated with the works of more idiosyncratic artists such as William Dent and William O’Keefe. The tone of many of his political prints also changes around this time, with the moderate Toryism of his early years being abandoned in favour of outspoken opposition to the government and Prime Minister William Pitt in particular. Aitken’s last caricature was published in September 1801, some 18 months before his business finally ceased to operate. The following biography has been constructed using the handful of references to James Aitken which appear in contemporary sources and an analysis of his surviving prints.

John Boyne, Falstaff & the Merry Wives of Westminster, 1788. The earliest surviving example of a satirical print published by James Aitken.

We know virtually nothing about James Aitken’s early life or his entry into late eighteenth-century London’s publishing trade. He was probably born sometime around 1770 and may have been a younger relation of the “A. Aitken” whose name appears in the publication line of three satirical prints that were published from No. 2 Orange Court, Drury Lane, in 1783 and 1784 [1].

The earliest definite reference we have of Aitken is that of his marriage to Ann Blay at the church of St Martin in the Field’s on 3^rd July 1788 [2]. He would publish his first satirical print some three weeks later from a shop located at “No. 18 Little Russell Ct. next door but one to the Pit door of Drury Lane Theatre” [3]. Ann Aitken almost certainly worked alongside her husband in the shop and increasingly took over the running of the family business from 1796 onwards. The couple would go on to have three children together: Charles James (1791 – 1851), Ann (1792 – 1879?) and Frederick (1794 – 1866)[4].

Aitken’s publication lines show that he moved from Little Russell Court to 14 Castle Street, Leicester Fields, sometime between August 1788 and May 1789. Richard Horwood’s Map of London, Westminster and the Borough of Southwark (1799) places Aitken’s new shop at the corner of Castle Street and Cranburn Street, and this is confirmed by the publication line of the print Billy & Harry in their glory or a great man kicked out of place (1798) which gives his location as the “Corner of Castle St Leicester Squre”. The British Museum collection also contains two prints which were published by Aitken between 1788 and 1790 with a non-specific address on nearby Bear Street in the publication lines. This was almost certainly an error on the part of the engraver, as the two-dozen or so other caricatures that Aitken published around this time all carry the Castle Street address [5].

His early efforts as a publisher of satirical prints indicate an attempt to emulate the practices of successful satirical printsellers of the West End. The decision to move to Leicester Fields coincided with a sudden surge in the number of plates being commissioned from artists closely associated with the fashionable West End shops, most notably Gillray, as well as the opening of a permanent exhibition of caricatures similar to those on offer at the shops of S.W. Fores and William Holland [6]. The opening of the latter was advertised in the publication line of the print Cooling the brain. Or – the little major, shaving the shaver (1789):

Aitken’s Exhibition Room. in Castle Street, Leicester Fields, is now open’d for the inspection of the nobility, & the public in general, containing the only compleat assortment of satiric, humorous & caricature productions now extant – admittance gratis

The Exhibition Room is not mentioned in any of Aitken’s other surviving publication lines and it seems likely to have been a short-lived experiment. We know that the backroom of Aitken’s shop had been turned into a storage space / private sales area by the early 1800s [7].

Aitken may have sought to copy the practices of his more fashionable rivals but it is clear that he dealt to a far more modest clientele. The pricing information that survives on a handful of his prints indicates that a design by Gillray could be obtained from Aitken in 1789 for 1s coloured and 6d plain, which was roughly half the price charged by S.W. Fores and less than a quarter of what Hannah Humphrey charged for her Gillrays’ at that time [8]. The need to keep his prints affordable may explain why Aitken increasingly turned to lesser artists such as Dent and O’Keefe during the 1790s, as they were presumably not only cheaper to hire but would also pay to have their work published in some instances [9].

William Dent, The Great Dumourier taking French leave of the Netherlands, 1793. The publication line of the print states that it was published by Dent and sold by Aitken.

Aitken’s gravitation towards the lower end of the print market appears to have coincided with the growth of his involvement in the illicit publication of indecent books and prints. By the early 1790s he was part of a small consortium of publishers that was responsible for producing Harris’s List of Covent Garden Ladies, a notorious directory of London prostitutes which had first appeared in the 1750s [10]. The activities of this group were eventually brought to the attention of the moralist Proclamation Society, which immediately initiated legal proceedings against Aitken’s partner, the bookseller James Roach, on a charge of publishing an obscene libel. Roach initially stonewalled, claiming he had done nothing wrong and pointing out that Harris’s List had been in print for almost forty years without being made the subject of legal action. When the court dismissed this argument, he fell back on a plea of ignorance and asked the judge to note that he had immediately severed his connection with Aitken and handed over his remaining stock of the offending book to the Proclamation Society for destruction. He also implored the court to consider the fate of his wife and six children, adding that he had also been suffering from severe asthma since his arrest. Sadly, Roach’s pleas fell on deaf ears and the court sentenced him to twelve months imprisonment and a substantial fine [11].

If James Roach’s prosecution had been intended to scare his partners into silence then it evidently failed to have the desired effect. Aitken continued to publish and sell copies of Harris’s List and was consequently arrested and brought to trial before the Court of King’s Bench on 10^th November 1795. There is no surviving transcript of the trial but the outcome was briefly recorded in the pages of the Times:

On the motion of Mr Erskine the defendant, James Atkin [sic], a bookseller, was called into Court, to receive judgement for printing and publishing an obscene libel, tending to corrupt and debauch the minds of the youth of this kingdom. The Court ordered him to pay a fine to the King of 200l. and to give security for his good behaviour for three years, himself in 500l. and his bail in 100l. each [12].

The fine was huge and Aitken was to spend the best part of the next two years in Newgate prison while his family scraped together the money needed to secure his release.

Isaac Cruikshank, Opening the sluces or Hollands last shift, (1794). Cruikshank blurs the lines between political satire, lavatorial humour and erotica in this 1794 print for Aitken. Bare-breasted Flemish women are depicted suggestively guzzling from the phallic spout of a gin bottle while hitching up their skirts and drowning an approaching French army with their urine.

The arrest must have dealt Aitken’s business a financial blow from which it never fully recovered. With most of the profits now being diverted to pay his court fines, there would have been little capital left to invest in new stock or publishing projects and it is likely that the family became increasingly mired in debt [13]. The declining fortunes of his business are reflected in both the sudden decrease in the number of new caricatures published in the years after 1795, and also the appearance of a new publication line which indicated that a J. Potsley of 50 Pimlico was responsible for financing the production of many of the prints Aitken now sold [14].

James Aitken was finally declared bankrupt in October 1801. The notice of bankruptcy which appeared in the London press described him as a “Print-Seller, Dealer and Chapman” and invited his creditors to present themselves at the Guildhall to lay claim to a portion of his remaining estate [15]. It is likely that his remaining stock of copperplates was either seized or sold at this time, as many of them are known to have ended up in the hands of Piercy Roberts of Middle Row Holborn, who would go on to reissue them under his own name during the early 1800s [16].

The bankruptcy may have marked the end of his career as a publisher of satirical prints but it does not appear to have prevented him from continuing to trade from his premises in Castle Street. We know that he was still active there in the summer of 1802 because he was once again arrested on a charge of selling indecent images from that address. This time he was jailed and also sentenced to the humiliating punishment of being placed in a pillory which was specially erected outside his shop.[17].

Ann Aitken assumed responsibility for the running of the shop from July 1802 until February 1803, when she was also arrested for selling indecent prints and drawings. A brief account of the trail was published the Times:

An example of late eighteenth-century erotica by Thomas Rowlandson. Prints such as these were often sold unsigned and without publication lines, making it impossible to identify their source. Rowlandson’s erotica has survived thanks to his cache as a serious artist, however it’s likely that the printshops of London in this period were awash with similar works by lesser artists. The prudishness of contemporary record-keepers and newspapers means that indecent prints were never described in detail and it is therefore impossible to know exactly what type of erotic prints James and Ann Aitken dealt in.

This was a prosecution against Ann, the wife of James Aitken, for publishing an obscene and indecent drawing. Her husband is at present in custody, under a conviction for a similar offence. She continued to keep the shop, and carried on the same infamous traffic. One of the most respectable and active members of the Society [for the Suppression of Vice], on being informed what books and prints were to be sold at this shop, went there to satisfy himself whether this could possible by true. He was permitted to retire into a private room, to look at some that were well finished, and that were of the most horrid and abominable nature that could possible by imagined. It was enough to harrow up the feelings of any man. This drawing was supposed to be a family-party. This woman had three children, who were brought up in the midst of all this infamy. These prints, exposed to the public view scenes that never took place since the foundation of the world, and pointed out with art, talents, and dexterity, scenes that never were acted since the sun was created.

It appeared in evidence there were about two hundred indecent prints in a drawer and the drawing in question was purchased at the price of one guinea. This woman said in her own defence, that a Gentleman had made her a present of these articles, and desired her to sell them, to enable her to support her family.

Lord Ellenborough said, it was a bad and criminal means of support. The crime was, no doubt, proved. That she sold this for her own benefit was completely proved; and it was a most obscene, beastly, drawing. It would be their duty to find the defendant guilty. It was to be lamented that no punishment seemed to have any effect. He did not know what was to be done – Guilty.  There were other two indictment [sic] against her, which, out of clemency, were permitted to stand over…

Lord Ellenborough told this woman, she must turn to another course of life. The law would not allow the public morals to be corrupted, to maintain her and her family [18].

Ann Aitken was sentenced to 12 month imprisonment with hard labour in February 1803 and there are no further records relating to the Aitken family as printsellers or publishers after this date [19].

The ultimate fate of James and Ann Aitken remains a mystery. Assuming they both survived their time in prison and were released sometime during 1804 – 05, it seems reasonable to assume that James could have returned to work as the anonymous employee of another publisher. His family certainly remained active in the trade for at least another generation, with the Census for 1851 indicating that both Charles James and Frederick Aitken were employed as bookbinders [20]. An analysis of contemporary burial records turns up multiple possible terminal dates for James and Ann Aitken, ranging from 1815 to 1842. Perhaps the most worrying of these is that of a 51 year old James Aitken, who died while resident in the workhouse of the Parish of St Anne’s, Soho, on 4th July 1817, raising the possibility that the former printseller lived a relatively short life in conditions of extreme poverty [21].

Although Gillray’s ‘A representation of the horrid barbarities…’ was ostensibly a satire on the violent excesses of the French Revolution, the copious amount of naked flesh on display and the meretricious appearance of the nuns, suggest that it was designed as a piece of erotica. 

The brief history of James Aitken’s involvement in the London publishing trade provides us with some insight into the links between graphic satire and the publication of printed erotica in this period. A number of Aitken’s caricatures indicate that the lines between bawdy satire and outright pornography could become blurred, as in the case of Gillray’s A representation of the horrid barbarities practised upon the nuns by the fish-women, on breaking into the nunneries in France (1792), which was published so long after the events it purports to depict that it can only have been produced with titillation in mind. In some instances it’s possible that this blurring of boundaries was deliberate, with stocks of bawdy prints being used as a means of surreptitiously advertising that more risque material was available and of sounding out potential customers [22].

Aitken’s history also bears out Iain McCalman’s contention that a propensity to deal in indecent books and prints was often symptomatic of the underlying weakness of a publisher’s business [23]. It’s clear that James and Ann Aitken became more dependent on the sale of illegal prints as the overall health of their business declined during the late-1790s and they were ultimately forced to continue in the trade even after James’s second arrest and public pillorying in 1802. The reasons for this are likely to have been entirely economic; the illicit nature of these prints meant that they could be sold for four or five times the price of an average caricature without any commensurate increase in production costs, thus allowing a business to sustain itself on a comparatively low level of sales [24]. Unfortunately this also meant that the Aitkens were far more vulnerable to entrapment and arrest, as they could not afford to exercise discretion when choosing who to reveal their stock of illegal prints to. The irony of James Aitken’s situation is that it was the constant hounding of the Society for the Suppression of Vice which was ultimately responsible for transforming him from a respectable satirical printseller who dabbled in erotica, into a hardened peddler of criminal pornography.

 

---

References

1. Aitken’s prison record notes that he was 32 years of age in 1802. He is also described as being 5’5 in height with a fair complexion. HO 26; Piece: 8; Page: 3. For prints by A. Aitken see B.M Satires 6288, 6560 & 6665. Aside, from the shared surname, this earlier printseller was also located in area of Drury Lane and published at least one print by William Dent.
2. England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973 [database on-line].
3. The address is given in the publication line of the print Falstaff & the merry wives of Westminster, canvassing for their favourite member Ld. T-d. Published 20th July 1788.
4. Dates taken from online register of births, marriages and deaths. The younger Ann Aitken may married Henry Hawes in 1824 and is presumed to have been the 87 year-old Ann Hawes who died in Chelsea in April 1879.
5. The two prints carrying the Bear Street address are Advice to the Electors of Westminster, or the Case as it is (1790) and The seals in commishion or the downfall of Lord Thrumb (c.1788-89). Mistakes such as this were not uncommon and are presumably symptomatic of a jobbing engraver who was unfamiliar with the specifics of the publisher’s business and working at speed.
6. Aitken seems to have been particularly committed to publishing works by James Gillray during the summer of 1789, when he commissioned no fewer than 10 original designs and also reissued an edition of Shakespeare sacrificed;-or-The Offering to avarice which had initially been published by Hannah Humphrey. The latter appears to have been issued without colour, presumably in order to make it harder to distinguish from an original Humphrey edition.
7. The Times report of 21st February 1803 states that customers wishing to view indecent prints were invited into the backroom of the shop to look at items produced from a chest of drawers.
8. Gillray designs such as The coward, comforted,-or-a scene immediately after the duel (1789) and Hyde-Park;-Sunday,-or-both hemispheres of the world in a sweat (1789) were both sold for 1s coloured, 6d plain. S.W. Fores typically charged 2s for a print coloured and 1s plain. He also charged customers 1s for admittance to the caricature exhibition at the rear of his shop, whereas Aitken’s display was free. The price engraved into the plate for Gillray’s Shakespeare sacrificed… (1789) indicates that Hannah Humphrey was selling copies for 5s.
9. William Dent is described as the publisher in the publication lines of at least 13 of the prints he engraved for Aitken between 1791 and 1793.
10. Other members of the group included James Roach and his brother John whose shop was located a few doors down from Aitken’s at No. 5 Russell Court.
11. Times 10th February 1795.
12. Times 10th November 1795. Aitken’s discharge is recorded in the lists for Newgate from 1797. King’s Bench and Fleet Prison Discharge Books and Prisoner Lists, 1734-1862 database on-line.
13. The complex credit networks that sustained the publishing industry in late Hanoverian England were remarkably sensitive to changing market conditions. The printseller Thomas Dolby would later recall that the moment his business was perceived to be struggling, his suppliers began rising their wholesale prices and trying to palm him off with low quality reams of papers. See T. Dolby, Memoirs of T. D…. late Printer and Publisher, of Catherine Street, Strand … written by himself, London, 1827. p.163.
14. See BM satires 7869, 8692 and BM No. 1948,0214.395. There is no other evidence to connect J. Potsley or the address 50 Pimclio with the publishing trade and it seems likely that he / she was an amateur investor became involved in the business while James Aitken was in prison.
15. London Gazette, 20th October 1801.
16. See BM 8434 for an example of a plate which was originally published by Aitken and later reissued by Roberts.
17. The Morning Post and Gazetteer 4th August 1802. “Akin, yesterday, stood in the pillory, opposite his house, in Castle street, Leicester-fields, for selling indecent prints.” Aitken’s entry into Newgate is recorded in HO 26; Piece: 8; Page: 3 but I have been unable to locate the record of his release.
18. Times 21st February 1803. Ann Aitken’s case was tried alongside that of an itinerant printseller named Baptista Bertazzi who was also arrested at the behest of the Society for the Suppression of Vice for selling obscene prints. Revelations about the Society’s use of paid undercover agents to entrap printsellers would eventually result in a public backlash and a split in the Society’s membership. See this article for more details: https://theprintshopwindow.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/bertazzi-versus-the-king-censoring-graphic-prints
19. J.P. Malcolm, Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London During the Eighteenth Century, London, 1808. p.121.
20. Charles James Aitken appears in the 1851 Census as a bookbinder resident at 4 St Martin’s Lane, St Martin in the Fields, Westminster. Frederick Aitken is similarly employed at Chesham Place, St George Hanover Square, Westminster. London, England, Electoral Registers, 1832-1965 [database on-line].
21. Although the burial record states that this James Aitken was born in 1766 and would therefore have been slightly older thanthe age given for James Aitken the printseller in 1802. See DL/T/087/023. Aitken could equally be the “James Aitkin” who lived on Gravel Lane in the East End of London and died aged 78 in November 1842. General Register Office: Registers of Births, Marriages and Deaths surrendered to the Non-parochial Registers Commissions of 1837 and 1857; Class Number: RG 4; Piece Number: 4211.  DL/T/097/014/002 contains the burial record of 50 year old woman named Ann Aitken who was formerly a resident of 33 White Hart Yard in the Parish of St Mary Le Strand. The address was located within a few hundred yards of James Aitken’s first printshop on Little Russell Court and may indicate that the couple returned to the Drury Lane area following their release from prison.
22. The New Annual Register, Or, General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature for the Year 1803, pp. 74 – 75. The travelling printseller Baptista Bertazzi said that he would often show potential customers caricatures and humorous prints as a means of testing their reaction and checking whether they would be amendable to the purchase of more explicit images.
23. Iain McCalman, Radical Underworld. Prophets, Revolutionaries and Pornographers in London, 1795 – 1840, (Oxford, 2002), p. 214.
24. The indecent prints at the centre of the Bertazzi case were said to be valued at around 8 – 9 shillings each. See https://theprintshopwindow.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/bertazzi-versus-the-king-censoring-graphic-prints/

Exhibition | Under the Guillotine: James Gillray

Source: Exhibition | Under the Guillotine: James Gillray

A Biographical Sketch of I.B. Brookes (fl. c.1826 – 1838)

The British Museum collection contains seventeen satirical prints that were produced by a publisher identified as I.B. Brookes between 1830 and 1837. The collection catalogue records that Brookes’ shop was located at an unspecified address on Old Bond Street in 1830 and at No. 9 New Bond Street thereafter. The catalogue also notes Brookes published prints under a variety of different names, including I.B. Brookes, J.B. Brookes, J. Brookes, J.B., I.B., I.B.B. and reversed forms of the initials J.B. and H.B.

Further research carried out using contemporary newspapers sources and other online archives now allows us to piece together a more comprehensive and accurate history of Brookes’ career in the London publishing trade during the 1820s and 1830s.

I.B. Brookes’ correct name was John Benjamin Brookes and we know little or nothing of his early life or entry into the London book trade [1]. It’s possible that he was the Benjamin John Brookes who was baptised at the church of St. Mary’s, Ealing, on 18^th September 1803 [2]. He may also have been the John B. Brookes who married to Elizabeth Castle on the 12^th August 1821 at Christ Church Greyfriars, a venue was located a few hundred yards away from the historic heart of London’s book trade in St Paul’s Churchyard and Paternoster Row, but all of this is mere speculation [3].

The earliest definite reference we have for Brookes comes from a newspaper advertisement of August 1826, identifying him as the owner of a bookshop located at No. 4 Royal Arcade, Pall Mall [4]. This address had previously been occupied by the bookseller W.J. Partridge and it is evident that it passed into Brookes’ ownership sometime after the following advertisement appeared in the Times on 31^st January 1824

To Booksellers, Stationers, and Printsellers – Wanted to purchase, a small but respectable business, in either of the above branches, with or without a circulating library, or to take a share in a well established concern. Also to rent a small house, or the whole or part of a shop in a good thoroughfare, with a short distance of the opera-house. Apply by letter, post paid, to A.Z. care of Mr Partridge, 4 Royal Arcade, Pall Mall.

The request for correspondence to be submitted ‘post-paid’ was a constant feature of Brookes’ own later trade advertisements, and it points to the possibility of him being behind the ‘A.Z.’ advertisement and this precipitated his takeover of Partridge’s shop at No. 4 Royal Arcade.

Brookes remained in the Royal Arcade for at least two years before moving to occupy new premises at No. 9 New Bond Street. The move was announced with the following advertisement:

To be let, No. 4, Royal Arcade, Pall-mall, a shop and other conveniences, lately occupied by J. Brookes, bookseller, who has removed to No. 9 New Bond-street, opposite the Clarendon Hotel. The rent is £30, taxes about £3 per annum. Coming in £35. Inquire at New Bond-street. Letters must be post paid [5].

Another advertisement, published a few years after Brookes appears to have ceased trading, provides us with some insight into the layout of the shop on New Bond Street, which was illustrated by John Tallis around the same time (right):

…comprising on the upper floor, two sleeping rooms, second floor two bed chambers, principle floor drawing room, ground floor a shop, the front glazed with plate glass, basement kitchen, with dressed and sink, water closet, and coal cellar [6].

Brookes’ trade advertisements confirm that he moved from No. 4 Royal Arcade to No. 9New Bond Street in 1829 and that he would remain there until at least 1838. The British Museum catalogue entry which puts Brookes in Old Bond Street prior to 1830 is therefore incorrect and presumably based on an error in the publication line of the print The Bulletin, or old Douro and his aid’s in a consternation (1830).

Brookes was primarily a bookseller by trade but he also dabbled in publication. His activities as a publisher can be divided into two distinct areas; the first of these was a number of medical reference books that were published in conjunction with Sherwood & Co of Paternoster Row and John Wilson at the Royal Exchange [7]. The location of his business partners hinting at the further possibility of Brookes’ origins laying in the City book-trade, rather than the West End of London. The most successful title produced by this consortium being:

The Green Book; a Popular Commentary on syphilitic affections, (adapted to the waistcoat pocket, and illustrated by coloured plates,) wherein every possible variety is fully and familiarly considered, and their treatment clearly laid down; intended as a guide to the invalid [8].

Which was popular enough to sell through ten new editions between 1834 and 1838, including an extended edition containing “200 extra pages and 7 coloured drawings” [9].

The subject matter of The Green Book hints at the other area of Brookes’ publishing activities, namely his involvement in the production of printed erotica and illicit pornography. Although the illegal nature of this trade meant that it was often carried out behind closed doors and it is therefore difficult to determine the nature and extent of a particular publisher’s involvement, we do know that Brookes was directly responsible for publishing at least two pornographic novels – The Lustful Turk (1828) and The Amorous Intrigues of Don Ferdinand and Donna Maria (n.d.) – and possibly also issued a number of indecent prints.

His involvement in the illicit trade in printed smut was certainly substantial enough to bring him to the attention of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, who had him arrested sometime in the autumn of 1830. I have been unable to locate a record of the trial and it is possible that Brookes’ cut some sort of deal with the Society in order to escape formal prosecution, as the following notice appeared in a number of national newspapers shortly after his arrest:

Society for the Suppression of Vice, 61 Lincoln’s Inn Fields. The Society having consented to drop a prosecution commenced against me, in the Court of King’s Bench, for the sale of certain obscene publications, on condition that I plead guilty to the indictment, enter into recognizances to appear for judgement when called upon, and also that I delivery up to the Society, for destruction, all publication of the same description remaining in my possession; and I having agreed to these terms, do hereby publicly express my obligations to the Society for its merciful consideration towards me and my family, and do hereby undertake that in future I will neither directly nor indirectly engage in the sale of such publications. And finally, I do hereby consent to the insertion of this my acknowledgement and undertaking in such of the public papers as the Society may thing proper, as witness my hand hereto, this 21st day of October, 1830.

–  J.B. Brookes, 9 New Bond-street [10].

If the Society’s aim was to shame Brookes into giving up an otherwise profitable line of business then its tactics evidently failed, as he was apprehended once again a few years later:

John Benjamin Brookes, printseller, of Bond-Street, was on the 28th ult. apprehended, on the prosecution of the Society of the Suppression of Vice for the sale and exposure of indecent and obscene prints and books. Bail, we hear, was on Tuesday last refused, by a Judge at chambers, for his appearance to receive the judgement of the court next term, and he consequently stands committed until that time [11].

The outcome of the case is not known but given that Brookes’ remained in business, it seems likely that he was either acquitted or fined and released on good behaviour.

In addition to the sale of books and prints, Brookes’ business activities are known to have included the provision of a poste restante address for personal advertisements and the operation of a circulating library from 1836 [12]. The latter was advertised as follows:

To the Nobility and Gentry, the United Services, and the Public – J.B. Brookes, of 9 New Bond-street, opposite the Clarendon Hotel, Circulating Library, respectfully announced to persons making a short stay in London, that he continues his system of accommodation in furnishing all the new works for perusal without demanding a subscription. Subscribers may rely upon being immediately supplied with the new publications. Subscriptions: – £1 16s per quarter; £3 3s. half year; £5 5s annual. The country trade furnished with turn-outs cheap, but communications must be post paid [13].

The project evidently met with some initial success, as Brookes took out another advertisement four months later to announce the launch of his new “ultimate subscription” to the library which was priced at £7 7s a year [14].

The publication of satirical prints was another peripheral element to Brookes’ business activities. He is known to have published at least 22 lithograph-engraved satires between 1830 and 1837, typically publishing a couple of new titles each year [15]. Production on such a small scale means that it is unlikely that he would have invested in the skills or equipment necessary to publish prints in-house, and the publication lines of a number of his satire confirm that some (if not all) of this work was undertaken by other tradesmen [16]. The appearance of the phrase “J.B Del.” in the prints Bow Street, The Pick-Pockets Examined (c.1830) and The Petition (c.1831) indicating that they were probably working from ideas supplied by Brookes himself. The only named artist known to have associated with Brookes was Henry Heath, who produced the plates Union Characters No. 17 (n.d. possibly part of a larger series) and It’s most hinfamous to let these here steamers out on a Sunday (1834) for the bookseller.

The prints themselves are almost entirely concerned with political subjects and are heavily indebted in both style and content to the popular Political Sketches of HB series by John Doyle. They mainly deal with the turmoil surrounding the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, and reflect Brookes’ views as an avowed supporter of the moderate wing of the Whig party. Thus Daniel O’Connell and those pushing for a more radical reform of the constitution are often treated with equal disdain to the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Cumberland and other ultra-Tories.

The “I.B” signature which begins to appear on Brookes’ prints from 1834 onwards was presumably intended to serve as both a method of marketing and a deliberate attempt to emulate the success of the satires that John Doyle had published under his “H.B.” moniker. We do not know why Brookes began using it instead of his correct initials, or what the letter stood for (perhaps the declarative – ‘I, Brookes’), but the following advertisement suggests it may have been deployed to distinguish Brookes from a prominent stationer of the same name:

To the Editor of the Times

Sir – Can you find a corner in your valuable journal for this explanation? In a late prosecution against Carlile, of Fleet-street, one of his bail was a John Brooks, a stationer, and now the same John Brooks is attempting, with others, to dictate to Sir F. Burdett what his political course ought to be in his place in the House of Commons. On both these occasions, from the similarity of names and trade, I assure you I have experienced much annoyance from various customers, believing me to be the party. At the time of Carlile’s prosecution, the remark was – “So, you are bail for Carlile!” And no less than eight time to-day I have been addressed nearly as follows: – “A pretty figure you and your letter are cutting the Times of to-day and yesterday!”

Without any wish to intrude myself or opinions into public notice, I cannot conclude without stating, that Sir F. Burdett’s late refusal to submit to dictation would induce me to give him my support, had I not always before done so.

Singed John Brookes [17].

John Benjamin Brookes died in late July 1838. His final trade advertisement was published in the Morning Post on 25^th July and he drew up his last will and testament two days later, suggesting that his death occurred suddenly [18]. In all probability he was one of the thousands of Londoners who succumbed to the epidemics of influenza, typhus and cholera that simultaneously swept across the city every summer during the late 1830s and early 40s. These pandemics would eventually force the government to launch a massive renewal of London’s crumbling infrastructure and initiate the first widespread public health programme. His business may have continued trading under the same name for a few years after his death, as No. 9 Old Bond Street is still given as the address for “Brookes, Book and print publisher” in John Tallis’ illustrated London street directory of 1840. However it seems likely that the property may have been sold by the time Tallis’ book was published or shortly thereafter [19].

 

---

 

References

1. Brookes Christian and middle names can be confirmed by reference to his will PROB 11/1897/322
2. London Metropolitan Archives, St Mary, Ealing, Register of baptisms, Jan 1802-Dec 1812, DRO/037/A/01/011
3. Select Marriages, 1538–1973[database on-line].
4. Times 14th August 1826. I. McCalman, Radical Underworld…, p. 204 states that Brookes was publishing pro-Caroline pamphlets from premises in Hanover Square in 1820 and had accepted bribes from Carlton House to desist. McCalman references KB 28/512/19 in support of this. I have been unable to check this document to verify the claim.
5. Ibid 16th February 1829.
6. Ibid 18th May 1840.
7. Other titles published by Brookes and his associates include Hints to the Nervous and Dyspeptic (1836) and Medical Hints – Cases and Prescriptions, illustrative of a speedy and successful method of curing morbid discharges of the Urethra (1837).
8. Times 20th September 1834.
9. Ibid 4th July 1836.
10. Copies of the notice can be found in Times 1st November 1830 and Morning Chronicle 4th November 1830.
11. Times 5^th July 1833.
12. For example the Times 28th September 1831 contains a notice from a music teacher who is willing to offer his services free of charge to anyone who may be able to offer his sister a place at a finishing school.
13. Times22nd October 1836.
14. Ibid 26th January 1837.
15. All titles part of the British Museum collection unless otherwise stated:

The Bulletin, or old Douro and his aid’s in a consternation, April 1830
Bow Street, The Pick-Pockets Examined, 1830 (London Met. Archives)
The bubble blowers or a picture of the times, 1831
Lex talionis or hit the first [June] 1831
The petition, 1831
The royal Jonah, 1831
The evil counsellor, 1831
Which way would you prefer to get in, 1831
The Tipperary janus, or both sides of the question, 1831 (Library of Congress)
The Discovery, 1831
The Charles St gang sent to quod for burking poor Reform Bill, 1832
There’s no denying it !!!, January 1832 (Library of Congress)
Prend moi tel que je suis, 1834
It’s most hinfamous to let these here steamers out on a Sunday…, 1834 (London Met. Archives)
Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis, c. 1834 (private collection)
A Prophetic Alegorical Sketch. The Frankenstiens destroyed by the Monster of their own Creation, 1834
Declining the Honor, 1836
The Lamb-eth Street Lament, a new song to an old tune, 1836
A Prime Laundress, or the head of the new washing concern in South Street, 1836
An Irish Howl!, 1837
The Irish Ducrow, or A private rehearsal of the wonderful performances intended to be exhibited this season, 1837
Amilcar Plumpit swearing the ten young Hannibals, [n.d] (Bodleian Library)
Union-character No. 17, N.D.

16. William & John Clerk of 51 Dean Street Soho published prints for Brookes’ until at least 1832 and from 1834 onwards this work was undertaken by  Lefevre & Kohler, lithographic printers, 52 Newman Street.
17. Times 14th March 1835.
18. PROB 11/1897/322
19. We must assume that Tallis completed his survey of Old Bond Street before May 1840, as the notice of the sale of the lease on No. 9 Old Bond Street appeared in the Times on the 18^th May 1840.