Before I exhaust my recollections of Duke-street and its celebrities, I
ought not to omit mention of a worthy gentleman who resided in it, and
whose name occupied the attention of the public in many ways, in all
honourable to himself, as a man, a soldier, and a citizen. I refer to
Colonel Bolton, whose mansion in Duke-street, between Suffolk-street and
Kent-street (called after, and by Mr. Kent, who lived at the corner of
the street, and who also named the streets adjacent after the southern
counties), was in bye-gone years the head-quarters of the Tory party in
Liverpool, in election times. From the balcony of that house, wherein
the utmost hospitality was always exercised, the great statesmen who have
represented Liverpool in Parliament--George Canning and William
Huskisson--have many a time poured forth the floods of their eloquence,
stirring up the heart's-blood of the thousands assembled in the street to
hear them, making pulses beat quicker, and exciting passions to
fever-heat. Mr. Canning used also to address the electors from Sir
Thomas Brancker's house in Rodney-street.
The lengths to which election zeal carried men may be understood, when,
during the progress of an election, business was suspended in the town
for days and days. Hatred, envy, and malice were engendered. Neighbour
was set against neighbour, and I have known many instances where serious
divisions in families have taken place when opposite sides in politics
have been chosen by the members of such families. It has required years
to heal wounds made in family circles, and time in some instances never
succeeded in bringing relatives to esteem each other again. The small
knot of reformers in this town stuck manfully together and fought their
battles well; and if the Tory side could boast of substantial names
amongst their ranks, those of Henry Brougham, Egerton Smith, Dr.
Shepherd, Mr. Mulock, Edward Rushton, and many others, occupy a place in
the pantheon of worthies who stood forward on all great and public
occasions when improvement in the constitution was to be advocated. I
recollect a time when it was scarcely wise for a man to confess himself a
reformer. At the beginning of this century, when the horrors of the
French Revolution were fresh in all men's minds, and knowing so well as
we did that there were many mischievous, dangerous, and disaffected
people amongst us, ripe and ready to foment and foster broils, bringing
anarchy and confusion in their train, it seemed to be the duty of all men
who had characters and property to lose, to stick fast to the state as it
was, without daring to change anything, however trifling or however
necessary. A man was almost thought a traitor to talk of reform or
change at one time, for there were not a few influential men who would
rather have risen on the ruins of Old England than have fallen with her
glory. Ticklish times we had in the beginning of the present century.
On the subject of Reform, it was said that an elector one day meeting Mr.
Brougham in Castle-street, thus accosted him:--"Well, Mister, so you are
going to try for Reform again?" "Yes," said the great orator, "and I
hope we shall get it." Elector:--"Very good, Mister, we really do want a
reform in parliament, for I think it is a very hard thing that a man can
only get a paltry 5 or 10 pounds for his vote. There ought to be some
fixed sum--certainly not less than 25 pounds."
One of the most remarkable election events that has taken place in
Liverpool was that in which Messrs. Ewart and Denison were engaged in
1830. Remarkable not only for the vigour with which it was carried on,
but for the intense excitement that it created, the number of days it
occupied, and also for the enormous sums of money it cost. The bribery
that took place on both sides and all sides was really frightful. It was
a positive disgrace to humanity. The contest was continued for seven
days. While it was carried on business in the town was partly suspended,
and all men's thoughts, and acts, and interests, seemed engrossed by the
one prevailing subject. On the death of Mr. Huskisson, those interested
in political matters set about to look for a successor to represent their
interests in parliament. Several distinguished gentlemen were invited to
stand; amongst others were Sir Robert Peel, and the Right Hon. Charles
Grant, both of whom, however, declined the honour. Mr. Grant had had
enough of an election contest to last him for some time, his success at
Inverness had only been won by too hard fighting to be lightly thought
of; while Sir Robert Peel freely confessed that the duties of Home
Secretary were such as to prevent him from devoting sufficient time to
the interests of so large and important a constituency as that of
Liverpool.
By the way, I recollect a rather curious anecdote of Mr. Huskisson, which
may perhaps not be devoid of interest. About 1834 I was dining on board
one of the beautiful American sailing-packets, the _George Washington_.
It was only a small party, and amongst others present was the late Sir
George Drinkwater, who related the following curious circumstance
connected with Mr. Huskisson:--Sir George told us that the day before the
lamentable occurrence took place, which deprived this town of a valuable
representative, and the country of so distinguished a statesman, Mr.
Huskisson called upon him at the Town Hall (Sir George being then Mayor),
and asked permission to write a letter. While doing so an announcement
was made that there was a deputation from Hyde, near Manchester, wishing
to see Mr. Huskisson. "Oh!" said that gentleman, "I know what they want;
but I will send them back to Hyde with a flea in their ears!" The
gentlemen of the deputation having been ushered into the room, they
stated their case, to the effect that they solicited Mr. Huskisson to
support a petition in parliament to enable them to construct a railway
between their town and Manchester. They had no sooner stated their
errand than Mr. Huskisson, angrily throwing down his pen, in very few
words refused their request, winding up his reply with these memorable
words--remarkable not only for the fallacy of his then opinions, but also
in connection with the calamitous event of the next day--"Gentlemen, I
supported the scheme of the railway between Liverpool and Manchester as
an experiment, but as long as I have the honour to hold a seat in
parliament, _I will never consent to see England gridironed by
railways_!" What would Mr. Huskisson say now-a-days, when a map of
England shows it not only gridironed, but spread over as with an iron
net-work of railroads, that to the eye appear in a state of a
inextricable entanglement?
To return to the election of 1830. During seven days the town was kept
at fever-heat, each day its intensity becoming heightened. Denison, in
his opening address on 'Change, on the 14th October, in appealing to the
constituency for support, avowed himself entitled to it, not only as
being Mr. Huskisson's friend--"the friend of your friend"--but an
enthusiastic admirer of his principles. Mr. Denison was son-in-law to
the Duke of Portland. Mr. Ewart was a townsman, and a barrister, and had
represented the town of Bletchingly (or Bl_ee_ching_ly_, as they call it
in Surrey), so that both candidates came well recommended. The writ was
moved for in the House of Commons on the 17th November, and received in
Liverpool on the Friday following. An army of canvassers was organised
on both sides, who plied their vocations in all directions. Mr.
Denison's friends mustered on Tuesday morning, 23rd November, in front of
Mr. Bolton's house in Duke-street, and moved in grand procession to the
Town Hall. Amongst them were Mr. Bolton, Mr. Gladstone, Sir J. Tobin,
Messrs. Wm. Brown, Ritson, Shand, and Garnett. Mr. Ewart's friends met
opposite to the Adelphi Hotel. The horses were taken from Mr. Ewart's
carriage, which was then drawn by the people. With Mr. Ewart were
Messrs. J. Brancker, Hugh Jones, W. Wallace Currie, W. Earle, jun., Hall
(barrister), Captain Colquitt, Rev. Wm. Shepherd, etc. The processions
were both got up in admirable style; splendid and costly banners and
flags of all descriptions were displayed, while ribbons, of which
Denison's were scarlet, and Ewart's blue, fluttered in the wind in all
directions. The following was the result of the polls. I give it to
show how remarkably close the contest was carried on, and how the tide of
favour ebbed and flowed: 1st day--Denison, 260; Ewart, 248. 2nd
day--Denison, 583; Ewart, 568. 3rd day--Denison, 930; Ewart, 918. 4th
day--Denison; 1320; Ewart, 1308. 5th day--Denison, 1700; Ewart, 1688.
6th day--Denison, 2020; Ewart, 2008. 7th day--Denison, 2186; Ewart,
2215. The number of freemen who voted was 4401.
If ever a borough deserved disfranchising, it was Liverpool on that
election. The conduct of the freemen was atrocious. I speak of them as
a body. The bribery on that occasion was so broad, barefaced, and
unblushingly carried on, as to excite disgust in all thoughtful men's
minds. Sums of money 3 to 100 pounds were said to have been given for
votes, and I recollect that after the heat of the election had subsided,
a list of those who voted was published, with the sums attached, which
were paid to and received by each freeman. I have a copy of it in my
possession. Whether true or false who can tell? Where there is fire
there will be smoke. It is a well-known fact that many of the canvassers
never looked behind them after that memorable time, and numbers of
tradesmen signally benefited by the money that was spread about with such
liberal hands. In some cases money was received by freemen from both
parties. In one case I find a man (among the H's) voting for Mr.
Denison, who received 35 and 10 pounds. Amongst the C's was a recipient
of 28 and 25 pounds from each side; and another, a Mr. C., took 50 pounds
from Denison and 15 pounds from Ewart, the said voter being a
chimney-sweeper, and favouring Mr. Denison with the weight of his
influence and the honour of his suffrage. In looking over the list I
find that the principal recipients of the good things going, were ropers,
coopers, sailmakers, and shipwrights. Yet the name of "merchant" and
"tradesman" not unfrequently occurs in the descriptions of borough
voters. Amongst the W's there appears to be scarcely a voter that
escaped "the gold fever." Amongst others who declined taking any part in
the election was Mr. Brooks Yates; he, feeling so disgusted with the
veniality of the voters, and the bribery that was going on, publicly
protested on the seventh day against the conduct of all parties, and said
"he lifted up his voice against the practice of bribery, which was so
glaringly exercised, and which had been carried on by both parties to the
utmost extent. The friends of Mr. Ewart had made use of his name to fill
up their complement without his authority, and he begged to withdraw it,
for he was resolved to remain decidedly neutral. The corruption was so
gross and flagrant that he would not give his vote on either side." It
is said that this election cost upwards of 100,000 pounds, of which sum
Colonel Bolton supplied 10,000 pounds. Mr. Ewart's family it was
understood, entirely furnished his expenses amounting to 65,000 pounds.
Mr. Denison's reached from 47,000 to 50,000 pounds.
Amongst those who addressed the various meetings during the week of the
election, and previous to the commencement of the polling, were Mr.
William Rathbone, Mr. Henderson, barrister (afterwards recorder), Rev. W.
Shepherd, Captain Colquitt, Mr. James Brancker (who proposed and seconded
Mr. Ewart), and Mr. Falvey. The orators on the part of Mr. Denison were,
Mr. Edward Rushton (afterwards stipendiary magistrate), Messrs. Shand, W.
Brown (now Sir William Brown), John Bolton, W. Earle, Leyland, Sir John
Tobin, etc. About the fourth day of the election the real excitement
commenced, and the baneful system of bribery was resorted to. On the
fifth day the prices of votes advanced from 20 to 25 pounds, and as much
as 40 to 50 pounds were asked and obtained. It was expected that on the
sixth day the contest would close, but it seemed to be then continued
with unabated vigour. On the seventh day voters were brought from all
parts of England, Scotland, Ireland, and wherever they could be met with.
The tricks played by both parties on voters were most amusing, either to
deter or compel them to vote. Nearly four hundred freemen declined or
were unable to record their votes.
Even in the elections for mayor the most inconceivable interest was
excited, and in one case, that of 1828, between Messrs. Porter and
Robinson, from 16,000 to 20,000 pounds, if not a larger sum, was said to
have been expended in carrying the day. I recollect a worthy
tobacconist, who kept a little shop in the town, who had a vote and was
not inclined to sell it cheap. In every insidious way was he assailed to
part with his vote. On the occasion of this election the list of voters
was rapidly running out to the last drop; the hour of closing the poll
was approaching, and it was found impossible to keep the poll open
another day. "Come, Mr. Pipes, what about your vote?--it's half-past
three!" "Call again in a quarter of an hour." In this quarter of an
hour the little tobacconist's shop was besieged by canvassers on both
sides, when the tempting sum of 30 pounds was reached. The cunning
little Abel Drugger knew his value, but no higher sum would either party
advance. Pipes had, unfortunately, gone into the back part of his shop
for a few minutes, when a wag put his clock back thirteen minutes.
Keeping his eye, while in the shop, on the clock, every now and
then--although, as he admitted afterwards, it seemed a long quarter of an
hour--he still kept off his persecutors. When the hand approached the
quarter on the false-telling dial, one canvasser, bolder than the rest,
laid 35 pounds on a box of cigars, as the bid for it. But Master Pipes
only was sold, for just as he was about to take up the tissue paper
bearing the magic name of Henry Hase, St. George's church struck four,
and the prize was re-pocketed to the great discomfiture of "Pipes," and
the merriment of his customers. Of electioneering tricks I could tell a
full score.
The practice of the "Duello" is, happily, now gone quite out of fashion,
but in my young days any and every occasion of offence was seized upon as
a _casus belli_. Duels were fought on the most frivolous occasions and
for the slightest possible affronts, intentional or supposititious.
This taste has subsided, as well as that for hard drinking. I can
remember both being carried to a lamentable state of excess; but these
practices have grown out of date. I have seen, thank goodness, other
equally salutary improvements in morals, customs, and manners.
Two remarkable hostile meetings, I recollect, took place in Liverpool at
the commencement of the present century, and caused an immense sensation,
from the known position and high standing of all the parties concerned.
The first duel I shall mention was that between Mr. Sparling, late of St.
Domingo House, Everton, and Mr. Grayson, an eminent shipbuilder. Both
gentlemen moved in the first circles of society in the town. It took
place on the 24th of February, 1804.
The occasion of the duel was a conversation that occurred in Mr.
Grayson's carriage, between that gentleman and Major Brooks (who was shot
by Colonel Bolton in the ensuing year), on their way to dine at Mr.
Grayson's, at Wavertree. Mr. Grayson, it seems, called Mr. Sparling "a
villain," for breaking off the marriage between himself and a relative of
Mr. Grayson's. Major Brooks repeated this conversation to Mr. Sparling,
who instantly commenced a correspondence with Mr. Grayson, calling upon
him to apologise for his language. This correspondence continued from
October until the time the duel was fought--the meeting being the
consequence of the unsatisfactory results of the communications between
the parties. They met at a place called Knot's Hole, near the shore by
the Aigburth-road. Mr. Sparling was attended by Captain Colquitt,
commanding the _Princess_ frigate, then in the river. Mr. Grayson's
second was Dr. MacCartney. After the fatal shots were fired Mr.
Grayson's servant found his master alone, lying on the ground with his
face downwards. He was desperately wounded in the thigh, and was taken
back to Liverpool as quickly as possible. He lingered until the
following Sunday, when he died. Mr. Sparling and Captain Colquitt were,
at the coroner's inquest, found guilty of murder, and were tried at
Lancaster, on the 4th of April, before Sir Alan Chambre. Sergeant
Cockle, Attorney-General for the County Palatine of Lancaster, led for
the crown; with him were Messrs. Clark and Scarlett (afterwards Sir
James); attorneys, Messrs. Ellames and Norris. For the prisoners,
Messrs. Park (afterwards Baron Park), Wood, Topping, Raincock, and Heald;
attorney, Mr. William Statham.
It came out in evidence during the trial, that the hour of meeting was
seven o'clock on Sunday morning, February 24th. Mr. Sparling and Captain
Colquitt arrived first at Park Chapel; on alighting the Captain carried
the pistol-case, and the two gentlemen went through a gate into a field
opposite, to the place of rendezvous. Soon after Dr. MacCartney and Mr.
Park, the surgeon, arrived in a carriage. Mr. Park had been induced to
accompany the Doctor on the representation that he was about to attend a
patient of some consequence, and required his (Mr. Park's) advice and
skill. Soon after Mr. Grayson arrived on foot, attended by his servant,
when, finding the two gentlemen in waiting, he pulled out his watch, and
remarked that he feared he was rather late, but that it was all his
servant's fault. Dr. MacCartney then took out the pistol-case from the
carriage (leaving Mr. Park in it, who had declined proceeding any
further), and with Mr. Grayson passed through the same gate as did Mr.
Sparling and the Captain. They then went down the field towards the
river, and soon afterwards a shot or shots were heard by Mr. Park, Mr.
Grayson's servant, and the post-boys. Mr. Grayson's servant ran into the
field, and met Mr. Sparling and Captain Colquitt hurrying up the
foot-road, the former asked him "what he wanted?" he told him who he was,
when Mr. Sparling informed him his master was severely wounded. The two
gentlemen then ran onward when they met Mr. Park, who had got out of the
carriage on seeing them coming towards the road in such a hurry. They
bade him "make haste, for Grayson was badly wounded." They then got into
their carriage and told the coachman to drive back to Liverpool. The
other driver asserted he heard Captain Colquitt say, "by G---, it has
done me good." The two gentlemen were driven first to Mr. Ralph Benson's
in Duke-street, to whom a message was sent up that Mr. Sparling "had been
in the country and was quite well." They next called on Mr. Stavert,
when Mr. Sparling said, "I have put a ball into Grayson this morning."
Mr. Stavert replied, "I hope he is not much hurt," when Mr. Sparling
exclaimed, "I think not, for he made too much noise for it to be of any
consequence." They were next driven to the Royal Hotel and thence to the
Pier Slip, where a boat was in waiting, in which they were rowed off.
Mr. Park, on hurrying forward to Knot's Hole, found Mr. Grayson supported
by his servant and Dr. MacCartney. His breeches were soaked with blood
at his right thigh. There appeared to be a shot-hole at the upper part
near the hip. He complained of being in acute pain, and that he had lost
the use of his limbs; he said he could no longer stand, but must be
allowed to sit down. The party, however, bore him to the carriage, and
got him home as soon as possible. Mr. Park attended him until he died.
The ball had perforated the thigh-bone, and was not extracted until after
death. It was produced in court.
Mr. Grayson was fully aware of his approaching end. On the Wednesday
after the duel, he told Mr. Park that "he was going to meet his God." On
the following day he said that "he hoped for mercy, and that he might
have gone with greater guilt on his head, if he had killed Sparling,
instead of Sparling killing him"; and added, "whatever his opinions of
Mr. Sparling's conduct might be, he truly forgave him the injury he had
done him, in giving him his death-wound, and hoped, in the event of his
decease, that his friends would not prosecute him." Mr. Grayson
repeatedly said Mr. Sparling was an utter stranger to him, and that he
did not know him even by sight.
At that time counsel were not allowed to make any appeal to a jury for a
prisoner. Mr. Sparling's defence was therefore read by one of his
counsel, Mr. Park. It was very ably got up. He bitterly protested
against the outcry that had been made against him in public, from the
pulpit and by the press. He wholly denied bearing any malice towards Mr.
Grayson, and justified himself, declaring his act was a mere vindication
of his honour and good name, and that he had, in conjunction with Captain
Colquitt, repeatedly asked Mr. Grayson to withdraw his insulting words
and threatening speeches, but without avail, and the meeting was the
consequence of his obstinacy. He said of Mr. Grayson, as Mr. Grayson had
said of him, that he was an utter stranger to him. Captain Colquitt made
an able defence, wherein he justified himself and his conduct. A number
of gentlemen of high character and distinction spoke to the kindliness of
manner of Mr. Sparling at all times, and also of Captain Colquitt, and
completely exonerated them from the imputation of entertaining vindictive
or malevolent feelings. Amongst others who appeared for Mr. Sparling
were Sir Hungerford Hoskins, Captain Palmer, Rev. Jonathan Brooks, His
Worship the Mayor (William Harper, Esq.), Soloman D'Aguilar, Lord
Viscount Carleton, Major-General Cartwright, Lord Robert Manners, Lord
Charles Manners, Lord James Murray, Colonel M'Donald, and Major Seymour.
For Captain Colquitt many equally honourable gentlemen and officers in
His Majesty's service gave evidence in his favour.
The judge on summing up decidedly leaned towards the prisoners, and the
result was a verdict of "Not Guilty." The same jury was afterwards
empanelled to try Mr. Sparling, Captain Colquitt, and Dr. MacCartney on
another indictment, but no evidence being brought forward, they were all
acquitted.
Thus terminated a trial which created an immense amount of interest, not
only in Liverpool, but throughout the whole of the northern counties.
Before I relate the incidents of the second duel that took place in
Liverpool, I will briefly give the particulars of another affair, which
happened in the same year (July, 1804), which gave the gossips and _quid
nuncs_ of the town ample food for conversation. This was the
court-martial on Captain Carmichael, the Adjutant of Colonel Earle's
regiment of Fusiliers, and formerly adjutant of Colonel Bolton's regiment
of "Royal Liverpool Volunteers." He was charged with "disobedience of
orders, and with addressing Colonel Earle in abusive and scandalous
language respecting the officers of the regiment." The court-martial was
held by virtue of a warrant from His Royal Highness Prince William
Frederick of Gloucester, the General commanding the district. The
president was Colonel Bolton; the judge-advocate, Fletcher Raincock,
Esq., barrister-at-law.
It appeared that on the 12th of June the Fusiliers were drilling on
Copperas-hill (fancy _our_ Volunteers drilling on Copperas-hill!), at the
manual and platoon exercise, when they were commanded to "order arms" and
"stand at ease" by the Colonel; his intention being to keep the regiment
for the remainder of the morning at firelock exercise. Something was
said of a private nature by Colonel Earle to the Adjutant Carmichael,
who, instead of replying, took no notice of the observation. He
subsequently spoke to the Colonel in an insulting and impertinent manner,
treating him at the same time with marked indignity--calling out, loud
enough for the men to hear, "that he insisted upon the officers being
called together to inquire into his conduct, for such things were said of
him as he could not bear." On being told that that was not the time nor
place to bring charges against the officers, and that he should put down
in writing what he had to say, and he would then be attended to, he did
not seem satisfied, but continued to demand the calling of the officers
together. Colonel Earle told him to go on with his duty. Captain
Carmichael still took no notice of these orders; but said his feelings
were "worked up to a fiddle-string." Still disobeying Colonel Earle's
commands, he was told "to go home if he could not do his duty." He was
then heard to say that the officers, or some of the officers, were "a set
of blacklegs." For this offence Captain Carmichael was tried. He denied
at first the right of the court to sit in judgment upon him, and raised
three objections, two of which were read, and the third was stopped in
the middle, being overruled by the court. The court-martial sat five
days, and the result of it was that Captain Carmichael was acquitted of
disobedience, but found guilty of addressing abusive language to his
commanding-officer. His sentence was "to be reprimanded at the head of
his regiment." Colonel Bolton was delegated to administer this reproof.
Colonel Bolton spoke highly in the Captain's favour, and stated that he
had presented him with a piece of plate which he had bought for him when
in London, to mark his respect for him, and his efficiency in drilling
his (Colonel Bolton's) regiment.
In the following year, 1805, the second duel was fought, which created as
great a sensation as that between Mr. Sparling and Mr. Grayson, in the
previous year. In this encounter the principals were Colonel Bolton and
Major Brooks, the same party who had caused the mischief in the
previously-mentioned affair.
The origin of the quarrel arose in this way:--Colonel Bolton, who had
raised a regiment of volunteers, in 1803, which he had entirely clothed,
armed, and equipped, mustering ten companies of sixty men each, was held
in high respect and possessed great influence with government. On the
death of Mr. Bryan Blundell, who held the appointment of Customs Jerker,
Colonel Bolton obtained the vacant office for Major Brooks, who had been
formerly in the Lancashire Militia. After enjoying this place for a
time, Major Brooks applied for an increase of salary. His application
was referred to the West India Association, of which Colonel Bolton was
President, to report upon whether an increase in the pay of the office
was desirable or deserved. The Association reported adverse to Major
Brooks' application. He immediately, publicly, and in the most
disgraceful manner, accused Colonel Bolton with being the cause of this
refusal, as he had learnt that the Colonel had said that "700 pounds a
year was quite income enough for a comparatively young, unmarried man."
Major Brooks, forgetting that Colonel Bolton's friendship and influence
had obtained for him, in the first instance, his appointment, did his
utmost to force his benefactor into collision with him, and to such an
extent was this annoyance carried, that at length a hostile meeting was
arranged between the parties. As a soldier and gentleman, Colonel Bolton
could no longer keep quiet. Major Brooks possessed, unfortunately for
himself, a great amount of irritable vanity and pugnacity. He had been
"out," as it was then called, not long before with Captain Carmichael,
whose trial by court-martial I have just detailed, upon some point of
difference in military discipline. The meeting took place on Bootle
Sands, and, to show Major Brooks's temper, on Captain Carmichael firing
in the air, he exclaimed: "D--- it, why don't you fire at me--we did not
come here for child's play!" In those days duelling was very prevalent,
and small words brought out pistols and coffins for two.
The first meeting between Colonel Bolton and Major Brooks was to have
come off on the 20th December, 1804, at a place called Miller's Dam, off
the Aigburth-road, which, if I recollect rightly, was a small creek which
ran up to a mill--long and long ago swept away. The circumstance of the
quarrel, however, having by some means got abroad, the authorities
interposed and both gentlemen were arrested on their way to the
rendezvous. They were both bound over, in very heavy penalties, to keep
the peace to all and sundry of His Majesty's subjects, and each other in
particular, for twelve calendar months. Brooks, on being arrested,
exhibited the utmost rage and virulence, and expressed himself in strong
language against the Colonel, accusing him roundly of being the cause of
the arrest, and the interference they had met with. There was not word
of truth in this charge, Colonel Bolton, though forced into the matter,
according to the laws of honour, kept the meeting a secret, and it was
afterwards actually proved that the secret of the meeting oozed out from
one of Major Brooks' own friends.
During the twelve months the two gentlemen were bound over, Brooks let
slip no opportunity of insulting Colonel Bolton, as far as he dared
without coming into actual collision. He said he was the cause of their
meeting being interrupted, although he had been frequently assured of the
truth. As the twelve months were about to expire, Major Brooks increased
his violence. On the day the bond ceased to have effect, the Major,
meeting Colonel Bolton walking with Colonel Earle past the shop, kept at
present by Mr. Allender, in Castle-street, then and there publicly again
insulted him, and called him by a name which no gentleman could put up
with. A challenge was the consequence. The report of the disturbance
soon reached the Exchange, and the authorities again stepped forward to
prevent hostilities. Colonel Bolton was again arrested and bound over,
and Major Brooks was taken into custody. The latter denied the right of
the authorities to arrest him, asserting that he had done nothing of
sufficient weight to break his bond, and that he could not be again bound
over until the year of bondage had expired. The Major was some hours in
custody, but was at length released without promising anything. He was
no sooner at liberty than he sent a friend to Colonel Bolton, who
consented to a meeting for that very afternoon. This was on the 20th of
December, 1805. The place of rendezvous on this occasion was in a field
at the foot of Love-lane (now called Fairclough-lane), which was skirted
by it. The exact spot of meeting was in a field about half-way between
the present Boundary-street (then a narrow lane with hedges) and St.
Jude's Church. It was near Fielding's nursery ground, which occupied the
land now used as a timber-yard. It was quite dark when the combatants
arrived. Major Brooks was accompanied Mr. Forbes. Mr. Park, surgeon,
who resided at the corner of Newington-bridge, was taken up by Colonel
Bolton on his way to the place of meeting in his carriage. Mr. Harris
was Colonel Bolton's second. When the parties got over into the field it
was found that they could not see to load the pistols. It would then be
about six o'clock. Candles were therefore procured to enable them to
complete the necessary arrangements.
As soon as the combatants had taken the places allotted to them, Colonel
Bolton observed that, according to the laws of honour and duelling, the
Major was entitled to fire first. To this the Major assented, and fired
immediately, the shot passing harmlessly by the Colonel, who then fired
in his turn, hitting Major Brooks in the right eye. The Major instantly
fell and died. Colonel Bolton was hurried off and remained in
concealment for a short time. It was said that the firing of the pistols
was heard in Major Brooks' house at the corner of Daulby-street. An
inquiry was held, when a verdict of wilful murder was found, but in
consequence of the strong recommendations of Major Brooks's friends,
admitting that he was entirely to blame, and that his dreadful fate was
entirely brought on by himself, the matter passed over without further
notice, everyone admitting that Colonel Bolton had conducted himself with
the utmost forbearance as well as courage, and that he deserved the
highest encomiums for his gentlemanly and straightforward behaviour
throughout this most painful affair.