Elliott, Thomas Carlyle & Lord Houghton

 

 

                   This research discusses correspondence with the Milnes family, who were landowners near Pontefract, and is based on letters in Trinity College, Cambridge, & in Sheffield City Libraries.  Let’s look at the letters & see what is to be made of them.

 

                    The first letter poses a problem since it actually bears the signatures of two dignitaries, namely those of R. P. Milnes (1784-1858) & R. M. Milnes (1809-1885). The former was Robert Pemberton Milnes, MP, while the latter was his son, Richard Monckton Milnes, MP. Richard was a noted essayist & poet who became Lord Houghton in 1863. Both father & son were – at different times - MPs for Pontefract

 

 

Fryston Hall.Tuesday April 6^th 1841

Dear Sir,

          I have had for many years a sincere wish to be personally known to you. – Will you permit me? – Will you excuse me if I ask you to come and see me on Saturday or Monday next to remain some days? Mr. Carlyle, whom you know well by reputation and who has shown that he knows you, is with me, and would much enjoy your acquaintance: the railway brings you to Castleford within two miles of this and I will meet you at the station whenever it is convenient for you to come. – You have written many glorious things against the corn-laws, I have given votes for it: if in our talk, you can show me that its repeal is for the happiness of the many, you will get my vote for the repeal tomorrow. Hoping to hear from you, and that you will come and see us, believe me, yrs very truly.

 

Rich’d M. Milnes

 

                    Richard’s letter was posted to “Ebenezer Elliott, Gen* Sheffield.” Underneath the Elliott’s address was the signature R. P. Milnes. This is very strange: two signatures on the same letter! Richard obviously wrote the letter, but possibly Robert paid for the letter & dispatched it – which could explain the two signatures. At the time of the letter Richard was the MP & therefore the busier man: it would make sense for him to leave posting the letter to his father. (* The courtesy title would be an abbreviation for “Gentleman.”)

 

                    The letter invited Elliott to meet Thomas Carlyle, the distinguished writer and critic, who had given enthusiastic reviews to Elliott’s “Corn Law Rhymes” & did much to promote the work of the (so called) Sheffield mechanic - described by Carlyle as “a red son of the furnace.”  This is the first time that a meeting between Elliott & Carlyle has been discovered. [Treat this with caution: when Carlisle was asked to write a biography of Elliott, he declined saying they had never met – editor]. The Corn Law Rhymer would have been thrilled by the invitation to stay with the powerful MP and landlord & to meet the illustrious Carlyle. The letter makes flattering remarks about Elliott’s poems on the Corn Laws, and it is evident that the landlord was himself not very keen on them either. All of this would be music in the Rhymer’s ears.

 

                    Elliott’s reply to the invitation is dated April 1841 – barely two months after Elliott had left Sheffield & retired to rural Great Houghton, between Rotherham & Barnsley. An oddity is that both Richard’s letter & Elliott’s reply were to & from Sheffield at a time when the Corn Law Rhymer was already dwelling at Great Houghton: perhaps the bard was still spending much time in Sheffield for business and family reasons.

 

                    Elliott addressed his reply to Robert P. Milnes Esq., Fryston Hall, near Pontefract. Pontefract was about 12 miles from Great Houghton, so that makes Elliott & the Milnes family almost neighbours. Elliott’s letter to Milnes is a long chatty one & is very interesting. The handwriting contains several elaborate flourishes, as though the poet was trying to impress. The text of the letter is shown below:-

 

 

 

 

R. P. Milnes, Poet                                                                                                                                              Sheffield 8^th April 1841

 

 

          Invited by “Milnes” to lead him from the error of his ways, and at the same time, converse, face to face, with the great Carlyle – great as a proser, because a poet – it would seem that I must accept the invitation. But, Sir, I have been during the last three weeks deaf as a post, in consequence of walking in the snow four or five miles, about seven weeks since, and forgetting to put off my wet shoes – a result which instructs me, that I am old. If I come, at this time, I shall only trouble you – or perhaps, vex myself also. I shall not, however; need a second invitation – I will use this, by and bye. As to the great Thomas, I will candidly tell you, that I dread to see him, lest the man should seem less great than his thoughts, and disappoint me. This is an infirmity, but I cannot help it. I am myself an infirmity – as I must now shew, (oh that must!) by talking of myself. Having retired from business, & paid my debts, I am now getting in my debts receivable. On a bit of waste land – purchased, I believe, of your family – I am building a little cottage at Great Houghton Common, where I purpose to live on about £350 a year – thus verifying Mr Carlyle’s prediction – after bringing up 13 children, 8 of them to adult age, and enabling 4 out of them to earn a proud though painful living, even in bread taxed England! I could hardly fail, I think, to shew you, that repeal of the corn laws would be for your interests as a landlord, if you wish to preserve your land, or your life.

          And the work-fed millions – Could they possibly be the worse for more food, resulting from increased employment & higher wages? I have long ago convinced myself, that the landlords are justly punished for this corn law by their present rental, if, but for those laws, their rents would have been doubled, no one calling them “palaced paupers, or palaced thieves.” Forgive me! But seriously, if you intend to persist in your food-restriction, geld the ladies, (alas you do!) or better still, try your hand on the lads first. Oh God! it gratters my gizzard to think of your strange suicides. Again, forgive me, Sir, if I must request to be remembered to you, I am, Sir, Yours very truly,

 

 

Ebenezer Elliott

 

                   

 

                    Now, there are several other interesting things about this letter. Elliott’s letter was headed “R. P. Milnes, Poet” whereas it was Robert’s son, Richard, who was the noted poet. According to the British Library Catalogue, Milnes senior only wrote one book which was called somewhat quaintly “Notes of a Tour by Mrs Milnes, Myself and Our Daughter from Milan to Naples and by Rome and Florence to Milan A.D.1831.” Nothing to do with poetry is listed in the British Library for Robert

.

                    Robert Milnes was born in 1784 & educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. After becoming Tory MP for Pontefract in 1806, he had the good fortune in 1808 to marry Henrietta Maria Monckton, daughter of Viscount Galway. Milnes was a dissenter in religion who disapproved of the London social scene. From 1829 to 1835, he lived on the continent – he had picked up his brother’s gambling debts of & could no longer live at home in his accustomed style. Things changed for Milnes in 1835 with the death of Viscountess Galway (his cousin & stepmother-in-law) who left him £11,000 and an estate at Bawtry in South Yorkshire. Milnes turned down the offer of a Cabinet post in the government & twice rejected a peerage.

 

                    Robert Pemberton Milnes was seen as a man of honour with a biting wit; he was straightforward, agreeable, clever but often caustic. His friend, James Spencer Stanhope, describe him as “a wild, unstable creature.” He died at Fryston Hall on November 9^th 1858.

 

                    New research on Robert has shown that he owned a considerable amount of land. There was the Bawtry estate already mentioned; he had land on the Derbyshire side of Sheffield, in North Notts & around Penistone. Most interestingly he also owned Houghton Hall & held the Manor of Great Houghton.

 

                    The first line of the letter is curious. When Elliot says he has been invited by “Milnes,” he must mean the recipient’s son who had written the letter. To refer to Robert Milnes as “Milnes” would surely have given offence – and here perhaps the inverted commas are significant: Elliott must have been referring to a third party: Richard Milnes who had written the original letter.

 

                    Leading “Milnes” from “the error of his ways” shows Elliott at his truculent best determined to thrust his views about the “Bread Tax” upon the eminent landowner & to convert him to an enlightened view.

 

                    The poet’s worries about meeting Thomas Carlyle  & finding him lacking are very interesting since research into Elliott’s life has missed this meeting: it has simply not been recorded anywhere. Carlyle (1795-1881) was historian, thinker & social commentator. He was a writer, biographer & reviewer who said many positive things about the Corn Law Rhymer’s poetry. The meeting of the two literary characters would have been lively and their conversation fascinating. It is a great regret that we have nothing from it. (Interestingly, Carlyle confided in a letter to his wife that he hoped the Corn Law Rhymer & the other invited guests would fail to turn up!).

 

                    With reference to the land at Great Houghton purchased by Elliott, we have already seen accounts¹ of how this happened, but it has not surfaced before that the land was acquired from the Milnes family. Twenty years later in 1863, Richard Monckton Milnes was to become Lord Houghton. It is very likely that the Lord Houghton title was named after the family land held in Great Houghton. (There are several other places in England called Houghton, but none of them are actually in Yorkshire). This coincidental link between Ebenezer Elliott & Lord Houghton serves to bring the two poets together in a way.

 

                    The end of Elliott’s letter is the usual lament about landlords & the Corn Laws which shows his single-minded grapple over many years with the burning issue of the Bread Tax. And yet, the bard realises that he has, perhaps, over-done this & uses a down to earth phrase – “it gratters my gizzard” to finish off with a lighter touch. The phrase means that the subject got on the poet’s nerves or literarily irritated his stomach!

 

                    Having weighed the evidence about Elliott’s correspondents, we have to conclude that Elliott’s 1841 letter was meant for the father & not the son. Since the son was a Member of Parliament at that time, it is clear that if Elliott had intended to write to the son (rather than the father), Elliott’s 1841 letter would have been addressed to R. M. Milnes, MP, and not to R. P. Milnes, Poet.

         

          The second letter by Elliott is dated 24^th January 1848, near the end of the poet’s life. The letter contrasts with the 1841 letter by its clumsy handwriting & its briefness: the letter was hard work for the ailing poet.

Great Houghton Common nr Barnesley 24 Janry 1848

 

 

D Sir

          I thank you for the invitation with which you have honoured me.

          We are all ill of a stranger cold, which if it cannot choke old people, knocks them down, and seems missioned to rid us. My wife’s sister died of it a few days ago.

          If ever you visit this neighbourhood, I need not say how proud I should be to see under my humble roof in your person a true poet – still a “curiosity of literature” in spite of Malthus.

          Though the stone, ungratefully complained of, is not of the best, your hall of Great Houghton, built, I am told, of the same material, (from a lower bed,) is not of yesterday.

 

                                      I am

                                                D Sir

                                                          Yours very truly

 

                                                                   Ebenezer Elliott

 

 

                    At least there is no doubt for whom this letter was intended since it was addressed to Rich^d Monkton Milnes, Bawtry Hall, Bawtry. It would be interesting to see the nature of this second invitation from Richard Monckton Milnes, the future Lord Houghton. Whatever the invitation was for – Elliott fails to accept it, probably owing to his poor health at this late stage in his life. Note, too, that Elliott paid Milnes a great compliment calling him “a true poet;” this was high praise from the Corn Law Rhymer. In offering hospitality Elliott was keen on visitors as he was lonely at Hargate Hill & any visitors offered him not only company but the opportunity for lengthy discussions of poets & poetry. Again, Elliott comments despondently on his health, although this is not surprising with his health problems & the recent death of his sister-in-law.