---

Introduction

I first became curious to learn more about the life of Samuel Griffiths through my interest in the business career of Sir Robert William Perks (1849-1934). In June 2001, I travelled to England to present a paper at the Conference of the Association of Business Historians in Portsmouth. In that paper I set out the preliminary results of my research into the business career of Perks and argued that the effort required to find out more might prove worthwhile. More particularly I suggested that Perks may have played a more substantial role in the transformation and modernization of London’s underground railway system over the key 1900 to 1907 period, than the principal published histories indicated. At the Portsmouth Conference, I met for the first time Paul Hadley. Paul told me he believed that Perks and Murray Griffith (1853-1937) were first cousins. This came as a surprise. It was clear from the published histories then available that Perks and Griffith had both operated on the ‘same side’ during the struggle for control of London’s Metropolitan District Railway Company during 1900 to 1901, but none of those works had suggested any close family relationship between the two. And the “Denis Crane” biography of Perks published in 1909 had made no mention of Murray Griffith. In due course, Paul Hadley sent me a copy of Murray Griffith’s birth certificate. It showed that his mother was Rebecca nee Perks, and his father was “Samuel Griffiths” (with an ‘s’ on the end of the surname). Who were Rebecca and Samuel? Why hadn’t either they or Murray been mentioned in the 1909 biography of Perks? These questions intrigued me.

Twenty years on from my first having heard that R. W. Perks had an “Uncle Sam”, I feel reasonably confident that Samuel Griffiths (abbreviated to “SG” in the notes which follow), was a significant influence on the young R. W. Perks during the ‘formative years’ of the latter’s career: – by which I mean the period from Perks’s final years at school through to his successfully qualifying as a solicitor in 1875. The business career of Samuel Griffiths was full of lessons for a receptive student. He went through the bankruptcy courts on five separate occasions: in 1846; 1853; 1858; 1862-64; and 1868. He enjoyed great business and financial success during the periods preceding each of the first four of those business failures. After his fourth insolvency he never succeeded in fully recovering to his former level(s) of prosperity. But he appears to have settled into a more modest, and much steadier, level of business success during the 1870s, with his weekly publication “the London Iron Trade Exchange” providing a sound anchor. There would clearly have been plenty of “do nots” to be learnt from the SG of the mid-1860s onwards, on the subjects of business and financial entrepreneurship, but probably quite a few positive lessons as well. From quite early in his career SG seems to have developed a fascination in the complexities of the British legal system and a taste for litigation. In the latter he won a number of victories, many of them costly and some clearly Pyrrhic. He may have come to regret not having had any formal training in the law himself, nor having had any close family-member with such training – with the possible exception of his brother Joseph (c1820-1901) who emigrated to Australia in November 1848. None of SG’s three sons trained to be lawyers. But it may well be that SG spotted in his nephew Robert the qualities that would make for success in that field, and that he provided encouragement in that direction when Perks’s preferred career option (the Indian Civil Service) hit a brick wall.

The biography of R.W. Perks published in 1909 was written when Perks was best-known across Britain for his activities as the leading political spokesman of the country’s nonconformists, and as the leading layman within the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, the largest and wealthiest segment of Britain’s non-conformist community. Perks’s biographer was a journalist working for The Methodist Recorder. He had formerly been a Primitive Methodist minister, before retiring due to ill health. The biography is slim and paints Perks as a man of high achievement in three spheres: business, politics, and service to his church. The focus tends to be on the latter two spheres, with the first presented more in a “supporting role”. In this context, any mention of SG, his five bankruptcies, and his two periods of imprisonment for debt, may have been viewed by the biographer ‘an unnecessary distraction’.

After Perks’s death, a limited edition (100 copies) of his “Notes for an Autobiography” was published by his widow, Lady Edith Perks. In this, there was a short passage referring to SG, and this was one of my first two ‘leads’ towards discovering more about him. The second of those leads was provided by Frank Sharman, a former colleague of mine on the academic staff of the Flinders University of South Australia. But first some more words on the story of SG’s “Perks” connection.

Samuel Griffiths (c1813-1881) was the oldest of the three uncles of R.W. Perks. Born in Bilston, Staffordshire, probably in late 1813, he was the second child of Samuel Griffin Griffiths (a Blacksmith) and Joice (nee Mills). Samuel Griffiths married Rebecca, the only sister of R.W. Perks’s father, George Thomas Perks, in August 1840, in Wolverhampton. Rebecca was SG’s second wife, and took on the responsibilities of caring for SG’s infant daughter Ann Maria, who had been born in September/October 1838 shortly before the death of SG’s first wife (Maria nee Mansfield).

SG and Rebecca had a total of ten children together, all born in Wolverhampton. Eight survived infancy to become adults: three sons and five daughters, born from 1848 to 1860. The two children who died in infancy were two sons, born in 1841 and 1842, who died in 1841 and 1845 respectively. It is possible SG and Rebecca had other children who died in infancy, records of whom I have not yet discovered. In December 1862, one of SG’s younger brothers Thomas Griffiths (c1817-1888) bought Higham House in Winchelsea, Sussex, and made it available for SG’s use on a rent-free basis. At least some of SG’s creditors were very curious about this, suspecting the house had in reality been bought using SG’s money. SG and his family spent the summer of 1863 at Higham House, and seem to have used it as their principal residence from later that year. Rebecca’s died there in January 1866. SG was elected Mayor of Winchelsea on Easter Monday 1866. He continued to live in Winchelsea for some years further, but conducting his business activities from offices in London. He appears to have severed his links with Winchelsea at some time during the early 1870s, having made the Hackney area of north-eastern London his principal place of residence. Following his death in north-eastern London, SG’s body was taken to Winchelsea for burial. That is also where Murray Griffith was buried in 1937.

In R.W. Perks’s “Notes for an Autobiography”, he stated “Several times in the Highbury days I spent my summer holidays with my uncle, Sam Griffiths, at the old corporate town of Winchelsea on the Sussex coast” (p.41). By “the Highbury days”, Perks meant the period following his father’s relocation from Wesley’s Chapel in City Road to the Highbury circuit in the autumn of 1865. But Perks’s first stay with his uncle in Winchelsea seems to have been somewhat earlier than that. “Notes for an Autobiography” mentioned a visit in 1863 (p41), while in August 1900, speaking at the opening ceremony of the Wesleyans’ Annual Flower Show in the Rye area, Perks said that he had first visited Winchelsea “36 years since” (reported in the Sussex Agricultural Express, 1 September 1900, p.7).

The passage in “Notes for an Autobiography” on Perks’s visits to Winchelsea was silent regarding Samuel Griffiths’ occupation and his business career, did not mention Wolverhampton, and did not give any information on the names or ages of the cousins Perks made reference to. Perks did indicate though that at this stage the whole family were Wesleyan Methodists. Referring to the then-Vicar of Winchelsea (James John West, c1805-1872) Perks recounted: “Calling one Saturday afternoon at my uncle’s home, Higham House, he said, ‘I have come to invite all you Methodist people to go to my church to-morrow morning. There you will find the great pew belonging to Higham House. It is always empty …if you will come to-morrow, I will preach a special sermon for the Methodists’. My uncle and aunt and my cousins and I said we would all go’”. Perks’s account of the sermon “addressed specially to us ‘Methodists’” read: “‘If’, the Vicar began, ‘I saw the devil running across Winchelsea churchyard with a Methodist on his back should I shout out “Stop thief”? No, my bretheren, for I should consider that he had got his own property’. My uncle looked grave; my cousins and I laughed heartily, but my aunt, my father’s only sister, was indignant. She at once rose and marched out of the nearly empty church”. (op. cit. pp. 42-43). The rupture in relations with the Vicar seems not to have been permanent. West read the burial service at the funeral of Rebecca in Winchelsea on 2 February 1866.

My education regarding the ups and downs of SG’s life in Wolverhampton, before he went to Winchelsea, began when I made the happy discovery of the web-pages Frank Sharman had written on him for The Wolverhampton History & Heritage Website. Frank’s enthusiasm for the history of his native Wolverhampton, together with his excellent knowledge of the sources available for exploring the nineteenth century local history of the district, have borne a great deal of fruit over the years. His webpages titled “Samuel Griffiths: Larger than Wolverhampton, Larger than Life” alerted me to how colourful a life SG had led, and how high a profile he had had in the West Midlands during the two decades preceding his Winchelsea days. And Frank’s careful documentation of his sources put me onto further leads to pursue. I am also indebted to Frank for his generosity in allowing me to read his personal copy of one of the scarcer sources on SG, and for his words of guidance during my various visits to Wolverhampton whilst researching into R.W. Perks and his ‘Uncle Sam’.

It was through Frank Sharman’s webpages that I became aware that in 1873 SG had published “Griffiths’ Guide to the Iron Trade of Great Britain”. A facsimile edition of this book was published in 1967 by David & Charles, with an introduction by W. K. V. Gale. In that introduction, Gale describes Griffiths as “… generally something of a ‘character’ … a flamboyant character, good at self-advertisement, and the cheerful survivor of more than one financial calamity”. Gale states that SG’s book was published “as a speculation and to keep the name of Griffiths before the businessmen of the day, to whom he was still prepared to act as a commercial adviser, and with whom he hoped to carry on his trade of metal broker”. Reading Gale’s six-page introduction, and the various autobiographical references in both SG’s preface to the book, and in the book itself, further stimulated my curiosity to learn more about SG and his activities.

I said above that the 1909 “Denis Crane” biography of R.W. Perks had made no mention of SG or of any of Perks’s ‘Griffiths’ cousins. There may in fact be one ‘hidden’ reference to Murray Griffith. Chapter seven of the biography begins: “The greatest episode, however, in Sir Robert’s life as a Methodist, was the inauguration and completion of the famous Twentieth Century Fund.” (op. cit. p.140). Although the ‘catchphrase’ for the Fund was the goal of raising “A million guineas from a million Methodists”, donations were accepted from non-Methodists, and in amounts that exceeded one guinea. Crane noted that Perks’s friend Lord Rosebery contributed 100 guineas, and went on: “[Sir Robert] tapped the purses of his business friends. …a keeper of race-horses was one day in Sir Robert’s office. This man’s mother had been a Methodist, and when he was reminded of the fact he promised ‘something considerable’ towards the fund …more than a hundred guineas” (ibid. pp.157-158). Murray Griffith had by the late 1890s become a high-profile race-horse owner in Britain. The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News of 19 May 1900 published (at p.11) a handsome portrait-photograph of him, and reported that his decision at the commencement of the Boer War to direct all his prize-winnings into British war charities had thus far put over £1,000 into those funds. When Perks was soliciting donations to the Twentieth Century Fund from his ‘business friends’, it seems probable that Murray Griffith would have been among his target donors. But the story of the substantial donation from the lapsed Wesleyan with a penchant for the race track may not have gone down so well with the targeted readership of Chapter seven of the 1909 biography, had it been made explicit that that person was a first cousin of Sir Robert’s.

Some Notes on the Life of Samuel Griffiths up to his first bankruptcy

9 January 1814	SG was baptised at the parish church, Bilston, Staffordshire. His father’s occupation was recorded as “Blacksmith”. SG was the second of nine children of Samuel Griffin Griffiths (1786-1861) and Joice (nee Mills) baptized at that church between November 1811 and January 1828. Unfortunately, for all but one of those baptisms, no date of birth of the child was recorded. It is simply my guess that SG was more than nine days old when baptized.
5 April 1837	SG placed an advertisement in the Wolverhampton Chronicle (p.2) announcing that he had opened for business in Horsley Fields, as a “Practical and Dispensing Chemist”. This appears to mark SG’s commencement in business on his own account. At this stage he appears to have focused on products for personal and household use, rather than products for purchase by other businesses.
18 January 1838	SG married Maria Mansfield (aged 18) at St Peters Collegiate Church, Wolverhampton. The witnesses were SG’s sister Catharine and Maria’s father John Mansfield. The marriage notice published in the Wolverhampton Chronicle (24 January 1838, p.3) described SG as “druggist”, and stated that Maria was John Mansfield’s only daughter. John Mansfield (c1786-1852) was an Ironfounder at Horsley fields, and was described in the Wolverhampton Chronicle of 17 February 1841 (p.3), as “a man of considerable property”.
5 September 1838	A paragraph in the Wolverhampton Chronicle (p.3) reported that C.P. Villiers and Thomas Thornely, the two M.P.s for the borough of Wolverhampton, had “transmitted donations of £2 2s each to Mr. S. Griffiths, druggist of this town, to be applied towards the erection of a new chapel at Blakenhall”.
17 October 1838	SG’s daughter Ann Maria was baptized at St Peters, Wolverhampton. On census night 1841 (6 June) Ann Maria was staying with her grandparents, John and Sarah Mansfield, and recorded as aged 2.
4 November 1838	SG’s wife Maria was buried at St Peters, Wolverhampton.
23 January 1839	SG placed an advertisement in the Wolverhampton Chronicle (p.2) announcing his intention to relocate his retail outlet to “more eligible premises”. On 11 May 1839 he opened a new shop at 2 Dudley street, Wolverhampton, describing himself as “Chemist and Druggist”.
27 May 1840	An advertisment published in the Wolverhampton Chronicle (p.2) for SG’s Dudley Street Shop had the heading: “Drugs, Drysaltery, Oils, Colours &c.” This ad. lays emphasis on “our extensive assortment of Paints and Colours of every description.”
22 August 1840	SG married Rebecca Perks at St George’s church, Wolverhampton. Rebecca was born in Madeley, Shropshire, in 1818, the eldest child (and only daughter) of William Perks (c1781-1831), “Cabinet Maker”. From about 1833 Rebecca had been living in Wolverhampton, in the household of her aunt, Marianne (or Mary Anne) Perks (c1783-1860). Marianne was the only sibling of Rebecca’s father, and had married her first cousin Robert Perks (c1780-1834). At SG’s marriage to Rebecca, the witnesses were one of Rebecca’s cousins Harriet Yates (nee Perks) and her husband Henry.
6 October 1840	Rebecca’s paternal grandmother, Elizabeth nee Claverley, died at Bilston Street, Wolverhampton, aged 93. She died at the residence of her daughter Marianne (sometimes recorded as Mary Anne), which is where Rebecca had been living from about 1833 up to her marriage.
27 April 1841	SG attended a meeting of Wolverhampton Chemists and Druggists convened to provide support for the initiative launched in London on 15 April 1841, to establish the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. In his 1873 book, “Griffith’s Guide to the Iron Trade of Great Britain”, SG stated that he was a member of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, and had been “from its foundation” (p.152). He went on to state that he had: “studied chemistry at one of the principal laboratories in Wolverhampton for two years, during which time we were permitted to visit and improve ourselves in the art of practical chemistry at this famous laboratory”. The context of these statements suggests the laboratory SG was referring to here was that of “The Horseley Fields Chemical Works”, opened in 1828 by William Bailey (ibid pp.148-152).
17 May 1841	The first of SG and Rebecca’s children together was born. He was baptized at the Darlington Street Wesleyan Chapel, Wolverhampton on 26 May as “Samuel Walter Griffiths”. This child was recorded as one month old in the 1841 census (night of 6 June). He died on 10 June 1841 at Church Street, Wolverhampton. SG registered the death on 11 June 1841, recording his son’s name as “Walter Samuel Griffiths”. The cause of death was recorded as “Premature Birth”.
13 October 1841	The Wolverhampton Chronicle published a public notice (at p.2) signed by fourteen members of the “Wolverhampton Central Association of Chemists and Druggists”. The signatories were listed in alphabetical order and included SG. Two weeks earlier, the same newspaper had published a letter to the editor (29 September 1841, p.3) from a druggist giving his address as Dudley-street and signing himself “Yours respectfully, Gamma”. Probably SG, “Gamma” expressed approval at Wolverhampton’s drapers, grocers and tea-dealers having: “unanimously resolved to abridge their hours of business, in order to afford their young men and apprentices an opportunity for mental culture, recreation, &c”. He went on, with “great pleasure” to state that on 27 September, Wolverhampton’s druggists had agreed with one exception: “to fall in with the humane plan of closing earlier”. This letter concluded with an excoriation of the one druggist (Charles Jackson) who had stood out against the plan: “one individual [who] thinks proper to act in opposition to the wish of the whole trade”.
18 August 1842	Samuel Frederick Griffiths, son of Samuel and Rebecca, of Church Street, was baptized at St Peters, Wolverhampton, with SG’s occupation recorded as “Chemist”. There is a Methodist burial record for Samuel Frederick Griffiths, “abode Wolverhampton”, aged 2 years 6 months, on 3 March 1845. (Ref. 2/04457).
November 1842	The statements of accounts which SG filed with the Birmingham District Court of Bankruptcy prior to his examination in that Court on 2 October 1846 indicated that: “…in November 1842, [SG] was worth nearly £1,400 more than he owed. …he had a large capital in his trade”.
5 May 1843	A major fire occurred in SG’s warehouse in Kings street, Wolverhampton. The Wolverhampton Chronicle of 10 May 1843 (p.2) stated that the fire broke out about 2 a.m. in the morning of 5 May, “The damage is, we hear, estimated at about £2,000 and the salvage is comparatively little; but as the stock was insured for £1,600 in the Exchange and County Fire Offices, we apprehend Messrs. Griffiths and Co. will not ultimately lose much. The building belonged to Mr. Joseph Underhill, and was insured in the Norwich Union for £200 which will probably about cover the loss.” This report turned out to be overly optimistic regarding SG’s position, however, as his insurer disputed its liability to him (see entry for 7 August 1844, below).
3 January 1844	The Wolverhampton Chronicle published a two-column wide advertisement inserted by SG. Under the heading, printed in large type, ” S. Griffiths & Co. Oil Merchants, Drysalters, Tallow Refiners, Manufacturers of Chemicals and Composition to Prevent Friction in Machinery”, this announced that the firm: “ have much pleasure in now stating that they have just completed Warehouses at their Chemical Works, in Meridale-street, in lieu of those destroyed, and on this account are in a position to execute any orders with which they may be favoured, with the least possible delay”.
7 August 1844	The Wolverhampton Chronicle published a report (p.2) of the hearing held at the Staffordshire Summer Assizes on 2 August 1844 regarding the action: “Griffiths v. Royal Exchange Assurance Company”. SG was represented by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, who told the Court: “this action was brought by a gentleman of very considerable merit as a chemist in Wolverhampton, on a policy of insurance from fire. There were various pleas upon the record, and among others a plea of fraud. He [SG] had been most anxious to meet that plea, but he (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd) saw that there were great technical difficulties in the way of a verdict, and that the result of the trial would probably be a nonsuit. The insurance office was willing to give up a sum short of his claim, and he (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd) had taken upon himself to advise the plaintiff in consequence of the technical difficulties in the case, to accept that offer. The plaintiff had, unwillingly, consented to those terms, having been most anxious to meet the charge of fraud”. The Royal Exchange’s lawyer told the Court he was instructed to consent to a verdict of £100 plus costs, and the Court ruled accordingly. The report went on to state: “The technical difficulties, we gathered, related to the omission of some necessary indorsements on the back of the policy – the necessity for which Mr. Griffiths considered had been waived in consequence of communications with the agent of the company. The omitted indorsements related to a stove being on the premises, and to the fact of the property being also insured in the County Fire Office”. This same day’s Wolverhampton Chronicle also published a letter from SG (dated 5 August 1844) on the same subject. Although formally addressed to the Editor this letter appears to have been published as a paid advertisement (at p.2): “Sir, Allow me to call the attention of your readers to the conduct of the Royal Exchange Assurance Company. In the extraordinary result of the action I brought against them to recover their proportion of the loss sustained by me, through the fire of my stock in King-street. Some misunderstanding appears to have arisen as to the effect of the verdict, and I beg to say that the Exchange, having to pay my costs as well as their own, have placed themselves in a much worse position than if they had paid me the £600 in the first instance. The verdict, though forced upon me, is gratifying to my feelings, since it justifies the course of my conduct; it also shows the unjust spirit exhibited towards me. They forced me into an acceptance of a verdict for £100 and costs, under the coercive threat of a nonsuit upon two technical objections, which I foresaw before the action was commenced; secondly, they have shown that they dare not meet me on the merits of their plea of fraud. I entered the inquiry on that ground, and would gladly forego the verdict if they would meet me before any jury in England. In haste, Your’s &c(sic), Samuel Griffiths.” In the preceding week’s Wolverhampton Chronicle, SG had inserted a fairly prominent advertisement (31 July 1844, top of p.2) indicating that he intended to publish “A Full Report” of the trial of the case before a special jury at the Stafford Assizes, and to sell copies through “all respectable booksellers, price Three Pence. It will be sent, post free, to any part of the kingdom.” The circumstances of this case were the subject of an interchange eighteen years later, on 10 May 1862, when SG was being cross-examined in court by William Izod’s lawyer, Mr. Kenealy, and Kenealy was seeking to raise questions as to SG’s financial probity. This interchange was reported in the Birmingham Gazette of 12 May 1862 (p.3): “Mr. Kenealy: Well you had the misfortune to have a fire on your premises? – Witness: I did. Q. What was the amount of insurance in the Royal Exchange? A. I can’t tell you. – Q Was it hundreds or thousands? -A. It was not thousands. …Q. But was it not £1000? -A. I don’t believe it was. -Q. And you took £100? -A. No. Mr. Kenealy: That you’ll swear? -Witness: What do you mean? Don’t talk to me! I went down to Stafford and battled them. Mr. Kenealy: Did you not make your claim for £1500 and settle it for £100? Witness: I will explain to the Court. They did not object to my claim – for the policy was there: but they refused to pay the money because the company said there had been a stove put in the premises afterwards which had vitiated the policy. I went down to Stafford with my action, being sure that if it was in law it was good in morality and the virtue of the case. I was advised by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd and Mr. Bolton, a respectable solicitor, to settle it for £100 and costs, and I did so. Mr. Kenealy: Upon your oath, sir, did they not allege that you put that fire there? Mr Griffiths (vehemently): Wretch! If they did they retracted it, wretch. How dare you, a wretch like you, allege it against me? You have been convicted of a criminality, sir, you have. Mr. Kenealy: Will you swear they did not allege that you caused that fire? Mr. Griffiths (with great indignation): You! You wretch! You have been convicted; you have been on the mill – you have been on the ‘stepper’, as they call it. Mr. Kenealy: Will you swear, sir, that you did not put that fire in? Mr. Griffiths (contemptuously): I have nothing to say to you, sir. Mr. Kenealy: Didn’t they allege it? Mr Griffiths: If they did, they retracted it. Mr. Hill [SG’s lawyer]: Are we really to have this line of cross-examination continued? Mr Griffiths: Oh, he is wretch enough for anything. I don’t think because he is a barrister he should bully me in this kind of way – a man who has been convicted himself and had his hair shaved at the expense of the county. (Laughter and hisses). Mr. Kenealy: These are lies, as everybody in this court knows.” There was a postscript to this interchange. On 27 May 1862, the last day of the legal proceedings of which it formed part, SG said in Court: “with respect to Mr. Kenealy – a very talented gentleman; I have admired his display of talent in this Court – no man more so. But Mr. Kenealy complains of something I have said with respect to him. He asked me if I had not been charged with setting my premises on fire. Inasmuch as I was never charged with anything of the kind, and never heard of it before, I felt excessively thrown off my guard at the time, and I made statements which I had heard, but which it now turns out are untrue. I therefore beg to withdraw them …” (Birmingham Daily Post, 28 May 1862, p.3).
27 February 1845	SG’s son Samuel Frederick died at Church Street, Wolverhampton. The death notice in the Wolverhampton Chronicle of 5 March 1845 (p.3) read: “On 27 February Samuel Frederick, only son of Mr. Samuel Griffiths of Church Street of this town, aged 2 years and 7 months”. Rebecca registered the death on 7 March. SG’s occupation was recorded as “Druggist”.
24 September 1845	Prospectus for “The Dudley, Madeley, Broseley and Ironbridge Railway” (published in the Wolverhampton Chronicle of this date, p.2) cited SG (of Penn Fields, Wolverhampton) as a member of its Provisional Committee, and also being a director of the Goole and Doncaster Railway.
27 September 1845	Prospectus for “Grand Trunk Railway: forming a connecting line between the Midland and Grand Junction Railway, with a Branch from Ashby-de-la-Zouch to Derby” (published in the Shipping and Mercantile News of this date, p.1) cited SG (of Penn-fields, Wolverhampton) as a member of its Provisional Committee.
7 October 1845	Prospectus for “The Tunbridge Wells, Brighton and Hastings Junction Railway” (published in The Sun of this date) cited SG “of Wolverhampton”, as a member of its Provisional Committee, and also as being a “Director of the Shropshire Mineral, and of the Liverpool and Leeds Direct Railways”.
11 October 1845	“Railway Notice” for “The Cambridge and Lincoln Extension, and Lincoln, York and Leeds Junction Railway” (published in the Gloucestershire Chronicle of this date, p.1) cited SG of “Pense (sic) Fields, Wolverhampton” as a member of its Provisional Committee, and also as being a director of the Liverpool and Leeds Railway.
11 October 1845	Prospectus for “The Direct Western Railway” (published in the Leeds Mercury of this date, p.6) cited SG of Penn fields, Wolverhampton, as a member of its Provisional Committee, and also as being a director of the Liverpool and Leeds Railway.
14 October 1845	Prospectus for “The North Western Trunk Railway: from Crewe direct to Gloucester” (published in the Liverpool Standard of this date, p.5) cited SG of Wolverhampton as a member of its Provisional Committee, and also as being a “Director of the Shropshire Mining (sic) Company” (probably a typographical error for the Shropshire Mineral Railway).
16 October 1845 (a)	Prospectus for “Extension of the Oxford and Gloucester Railway, called Gloucester and Chippenham Junction Railway” (published in the Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette of this date, p.2) cited SG of Wolverhampton as a member of its Provisional Committee, and being “Director of the Dudley, Madeley, and Ironbridge, the Tunbridge and Hastings, the Leeds and Liverpool Direct, the Shropshire Mineral, the Grand Trunk, the Trent Valley, and other Railways”.
16 October 1845 (b)	Prospectus for “The Midland Grand Junction Railway” (published in The Globe of this date, p.2) cited SG of Wolverhampton as a member of its Provisional Committee.
18 October 1845	Prospectus for “The Shrewsbury and Leicester Direct Railway” (published in The Times of this date, p.12, col 6) cited SG of “Penn-fields, Wolverhampton”, as a member of its Provisional Committee, and also as being a director of the Grand Trunk and Shropshire Minerals Railways.
24 October 1845	Prospectus for “Bridgnorth, Madeley, Shiffnal, and Liverpool Direct Railway” (published in the Liverpool Mercury of this date, p.2) cited SG of “Penn fields, Wolverhampton” as a member of its Provisional Committee.
31 October 1845	Prospectus for “The Louth and Gainsborough Direct Railway” (published in The Times of this date, (p.10, col 2) cited SG of “Penfields(sic) Wolverhampton”.as a member of its Provisional Committee.
1 November 1845	Prospectus for “Birmingham and Aberystwith Direct Railway” (published in the Liverpool Mail of this date, p.5) cited SG of Penn Fields, Wolverhampton, as a member of its Provisional Committee, This prospectus also cited SG’s brother, “Joseph Griffiths, Esq. Liverpool”, as being a member of its Provisional Committee. The reference to Liverpool here may mean that Joseph was working in the “S. Griffiths and Co.” warehouse there.  A later prospectus for this same railway, published in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of 13 November 1845, at p.1) also stated SG to be “Vice-Chairman of the Shropshire Mineral Railway”.
17 November 1845	Prospectus for “The Railway Exchange, Club House and Chambers Company” (published in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette of this date, p.6) cited SG of Wolverhampton as a member of its Provisional Committee.
26 November 1845	SG had a notice published in the Wolverhampton Chronicle of this date (at p.6 signed: “S. Griffiths and Co. Meridale-street Works, Wolverhampton”.) which indicates that by this stage he was operating a warehouse in Liverpool, as well as his businesses in Wolverhampton.
16 December 1845	Prospectus for “Stroud, Cirencester, and London Railway” (published in The Globe of this date, p.1) cited SG of Penn Fields, Wolverhampton as one of the “Provisional Directors” of this company.
20 February 1846	SG attended, and spoke at, a “crowded and somewhat boisterous meeting of the shareholders [of the Shropshire Mineral Railway Company] held at the George and Vulture Tavern, Cornhill, for the purpose of receiving the financial statement and considering the general state of affairs of the company.” (London Standard, 21 February 1846, p.6). The chairman of the company, Mr. Serjeant Adams stated that he had been elected chairman on 17 October 1845 and that at a meeting on 12 December, he had “discovered those transactions which it would be his duty to bring before [this] meeting.” These transactions were cheques totaling £21,321 15s. which Adams said had been “drawn without the authority or knowledge of the board”. This represented a substantial proportion of the capital the company had up to that stage raised: £37,737. And it was Adams’s argument that it was those “unauthorized transactions” which were responsible for the company’s accounting statement showing expenditures plus outstanding liabilities being £3113 in excess of its capital raised. According to Adams: “It appeared that some of the directors … thought they were doing a service to the company in purchasing shares [in the company] out of the company’s funds …They, however, had never received any authority to do so. The board gave no authority to them to adopt such a proceeding”. Griffiths spoke immediately following the Chairman’s opening address, saying it was his intention to “state all that he knew of the transactions [and] to offer the fullest explanation he possibly could. The commencement of the transactions spoken of by the chairman was in a proposition made at a meeting of the finance committee [on 24 October 1845] that shares in the company should be purchased by them. A document was drawn up … pledging the members of the finance committee then present [6 out of the total 7] to sign cheques, or to support the signing of cheques, for the purchase of shares out of the funds of the company. He did not attempt to justify the thing, but he wished the shareholders to know how the thing was done”. According to Griffiths the first stage had been to authorize “the purchase of 2000 shares in the company at a premium not exceeding £2 per share”, and he said he had been increasingly uncomfortable with the later and larger transactions, but felt himself committed by his signature to the 24 October agreement. The total number of the company’s shares which had been ‘taken up’ at this stage appears to have been no more than 18,000. Griffiths stated he believed the vendors of some of the shares bought using the company’s money were other directors of the company. He also stated that the various cheques associated with these transactions, having been cleared and then cancelled, had been returned to the company, and that he had removed them from the company’s board room “knowing that the whole matter would be brought before the shareholders [and to ensure] that they should be delivered over to them”. Some of the shareholders appear to have expressed skepticism about that. The outcome of this meeting was the appointment of a shareholders’ committee of investigation to make a report on the affairs of the company.
18 June 1846	SG was prosecuted in the Court of Exchequer at Westminster, “for distilling spirits of sal volatile and sweet spirits of nitre, and removing them from his premises without a permit.” SG did not appear or make any defence, “and a verdict was taken for the crown for a limited number of penalties, each penalty being £200”. (Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, 19 June 1846, p.4). This was the case SG referred to in his 22 January 1858 letter to the editor of the Wolverhampton Chronicle (see below). It led to his being imprisoned in Warwick Gaol for two to three months in 1847, in consequence of his non-payment of the fine. On the same day and in the same Court a Mr. Bailey was prosecuted for the same offence. Bailey pleaded not guilty, his defence being that the law he was accused of breaking was confined in its scope to the distillation of spirits for alcoholic drinks, and did not prohibit the distillation of sal volatile or of sweet spirits of nitre “they being used for chemical and medicinal purposes, and not used for ordinary consumption.” Bailey’s defence did not succeed and he was fined £6,500. (London Daily News, 18 June 1846, p.4). But the fact that Bailey had defended his case meant he was able to appeal. His appeal was successful and that then led to SG’s release from Warwick Gaol.
22 June 1846	A notice was published in the Birmingham Gazette (p.2) advertising “Sale by Auction of modern and costly household furniture, plate, linen and china, a newly built Phaeton, splendid Grey mare … team of Grey Cart Horses and other effects … to be sold by Auction without reserve, on the premises, at Penn Fields, near Wolverhampton, tomorrow… property of Mr. Samuel Griffiths…” On 5 October 1846, the Birmingham Gazette reported that SG’s “household furniture and effects were swept away under a judgement for a debt due to a Railway Company of which he was a director”, and thus these assets did not appear among the property then held by his estate in SG’s accounting statements filed in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court prior to its 2 October hearing.
25 June 1846	A Fiat of bankruptcy was awarded and issued against “Samuel Griffiths of Wolverhampton in the county of Stafford, Wholesale Druggist, Dealer and Chapman, trading under the style or firm of Samuel Griffiths and Company” (London Gazette, 7 July 1846, p.2518).
17 July 1846 (a)	The case Fyler v. Newcombe came before the Vice-Chancellors’ Court. The report on the hearing in The Times (18 July 1846, p.7) states: “The bill in this case was filed by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other shareholders (except the defendants) in the Shropshire Minerals Railway… the defendants were the members of the managing committee, among whom were numbered the whole of the members of the finance committee.  … the bill stated the finance committee, having determined with the other defendants to purchase shares in the market at an advanced price, in order that they might share among them the profit on the increased premiums, for that purpose withdrew from the bankers £21,000 and applied it to their own benefit. It was prayed that it might be declared that all purchases of shares with money of the company were fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff and other shareholders, and ought to be set aside.” Two of the defendants had lodged a series of ‘objections’ to the bill, but “His Honour said that he could do no more for the defendants than reserve the objections till the hearing of the cause”.
17 July 1846 (b)	Also on this date, there was a hearing in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, to allow SG’s creditors to choose assignees to administer his estate under his bankruptcy. The Wolverhampton Chronicle of 22 July 1846 (at p.2) reported: “Mr. J. Smith, Mr. Bridges, and Mr. Brown, (of Bilston), attended to conduct the business, as did also Mr. Motteram. By an arrangement between the solicitors, the choice was settled without opposition. It was also intimated that none would appear in the subsequent proceedings, the conduct of Mr. Griffiths being deemed very satisfactory by all parties.”
22 July 1846	The Wolverhampton Chronicle published a notice (at p.2), inserted by Messrs. Walker, Page and Loveridge, giving preliminary information that they would be conducting a five-day auction commencing on Monday 3 August, under instructions from SG’s assignees: the first two days to be held at SG’s Cock Street Warehouse and premises; the last three days at his Meridale Street Chemical Works. During the week following this initial announcement, further notices were published in the Staffordshire and Warwickshire press, giving more information regarding the items to be put up for sale. The items listed seem to suggest that just about everything that could be removed from those premises had been instructed by the assignees to be put up for sale by auction. And it was stressed that this was “without the least reserve”.
29 July 1846	The Wolverhampton Chronicle published a notice (at p.2), inserted by Messrs. Walker, Page and Loveridge, announcing that they would be conducting a sale by auction of the land and buildings at the Meridale Street Chemical Works on 18 August 1846. This notice is silent about who had instructed Messrs. Walker, Page and Loveridge to conduct this auction. In fact, SG’s name is not mentioned at all in this notice.
3 October 1846	The Daily News (p.4) reported on SG’s examination in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court the preceding day (before Mr. Commissioner Balguy) under the heading: “RAILWAY SPECULATIONS- THE SHROPSHIRE MINERAL”. According to this report: “…the amount of his liabilities at the time of his bankruptcy was £10,000; of this, £5000 was debts incurred in trade; £3000 in cash credits, and £2000 on account of share transactions. The chief ground of opposition to the bankrupt arose out of matters connected with the Shropshire Minerals Railway, of which he was one of the managing committee. Mr. Griffiths admitted that in conjunction with two of his fellow committee-men and the secretary, cheques had been drawn upon the funds of the company to an amount exceeding £10,000 … and it was attempted to show that a portion of this money had been applied by the bankrupt to his own purposes; this did not, however, appear to have been the fact, Griffiths affirming that the whole of the money had been paid over by him to persons connected with the concern. There was a suspicion that the purpose for which the cheques were drawn seemed to have been to enable the parties with whom the bankrupt was acting, to buy their own shares, in order to force up prices, or to what is technically termed ‘rig the market’.  …The bankrupt underwent a severe cross-examination which lasted nearly five hours, both on behalf of the company and the assignees, but ultimately Mr. Commissioner Balguy said he would pass his last examination and appointed a day for hearing his application for his certificate. …In the course of the examination it came out that parties connected with the Shropshire Mineral Company had, or were about to, prefer an indictment at the Central Criminal Court against Griffiths, Bond [the company’s secretary] and other persons, for a conspiracy in connexion with the affairs of the company”.
14 November 1846	The hearing for SG’s application for his certificate in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court was held. The report in the London Standard (16 November 1846, p.4) suggests that SG had been expecting opposition to his application from parties he had been associated with in his role as a director of the Shropshire Mineral Railway. But this did not eventuate: “There was no one present to represent any interest against the bankrupt.” SG’s solicitor stated his case: “…the bankrupt’s conduct had been free from anything like fraud. The fact was, that during a year of great excitement he had been led to speculate in railways, and thereby lost money; but his whole conduct from beginning to end had been fair and open. There had not been any concealment on his part, and the creditors were all satisfied with his trading transactions. He had never issued one accommodation bill, he paid up all his accounts to the last, and it was only when pressed by the force of circumstances, arising out of law suits, that he gave way.” Commissioner Balguy responded with a series of questions, an interchange which culminated in Balguy asking “Then, in fact, railway speculations ruined him. He became a committee man on companies, and actions were brought against him for debts incurred in prosecuting these schemes?” SG’s solicitor “admitted the bankrupt had been victimized, and so well satisfied were his creditors that such had been the case that they advised him to go into the Gazette, in order to relieve himself of the consequences of the improper connection into which he had been thrown; and now that they fully expected to go into some of those transactions, the parties dare not come forward to oppose him…” The solicitor representing SG’s assignees corroborated the first part of this, saying: “It was true that the [trade] creditors suggested to the bankrupt to go into the Gazette to get rid of his railway liabilities.” The hearing was concluded by Balguy stating that “he thought the case, with reference to the bankrupt himself, and the public at large, one requiring more consideration than he could give it that day, and he should like a little time to consider the facts.”
20 November 1846	Notice in London Gazette of this date (p.4882) re. the bankruptcy of Samuel Griffiths announced a first dividend to his creditors of 1s 2d in the pound.
1 December 1846	SG was granted his certificate in the Birmingham District Court of Bankruptcy. (Reported in The Times 3 December 1846, p.7, col 6). But Commissioner Balguy suspended the issuing of the certificate for 18 months, calculated from 22 July (the date of his last examination), stating: “…his accounts… so far as related to his trading transactions were satisfactory and his manner [at his examination] was certainly marked by a sense of candour and straightforwardness highly creditable to him. …it appears that he has been in business for a considerable time as a chymist (sic) and druggist, and upon a large scale. … [But] in the autumn of last year, being then, as he admits, insolvent, he became a provisional committeeman in no less than 18 different railway projects, subject to all the liabilities considered to belong to him in that capacity, and a purchaser of shares in several of them to the amount of £30,000 … The bankrupt is a man of mature years and of some worldly experience, a man of talent and decision of character … who ought to have preferred a career of honourable industry where he might have been a good example, to the shameful allurements of a sordid vice indulged in by him … he was not merely a wild and reckless gambler in these numerous adventures but being insolvent he was playing with the money of others. … [His stated] ignorance of the state of his affairs was most culpable; he ought to have been strictly scrupulous in ascertaining his real position before he presumed to put to hazard that property of which he could but be considered a trustee”.
16 February 1847	Some additional information regarding one of the 1845 ‘Railway Mania’ projects SG had been involved in was made public through evidence presented in the hearing of Barker v. Griffiths in the Court of Common Pleas in London on this day. The defendant in this action was Joseph Griffiths (1820-1901), one of SG’s younger brothers. Joseph had joined SG on the Provisional Committee of the North Western Trunk Railway in October 1845 (see entry at 14 October 1845, above). Charles Barker had been the advertising agent who had organized publication of the scheme’s prospectus etc. In the wake of the demise of the scheme, he had resorted to pursuing members of the its Provisional Committee regarding his unpaid bills. Barker’s case was supported by evidence from Edmund Garbett, described in the Wolverhampton Chronicle’s report of the hearing as: “one of the projectors and solicitors to the projected railway” (24 February 1847, p.4). According to the Morning Post report (17 February 1847, p.7): “From the evidence of Mr. Garbett, it appeared that the name of the defendant was put upon the list of provisional committeemen of the company by the authority of the defendant’s brother; that the defendant afterwards, when informed of this, assented to it, and subsequently attended a meeting of the committee on the 5th of November 1845. At this meeting, after some discussion, the secretary of the company was verbally instructed, there being no written resolution to that effect, to advertise in several papers, which was accordingly done…” The person who had signed Joseph’s application for shares in the provisionally registered company, under the authorization of SG, was Thomas Lawton who was employed as a ledger clerk by SG in Wolverhampton. Lawton gave evidence for Joseph’s defence, and: “deposed that he had known the defendant three years, and that on one occasion he was with him and Garbett at the Star and Garter at Wolverhampton, and that Garbett said to the defendant – ‘You are one of the directors on the Trunk,’ to which defendant replied, ‘You are joking. I never gave my credit to such a thing’. Garbett then said, ‘We have put you on;’ to which defendant replied, ‘Then I will thank you to take me off.’” (Staffordshire Advertiser, 20 February 1847, p.8). Lawton went on to state that Garbett had then told Joseph: “there would be a meeting in a day or two, of which he would apprise him, and if he (the defendant) would go, and found that he disliked it, then that he (Garbett) would remove his name from the provisional committee” (Wolverhampton Chronicle, 24 February 1847, p.4). Garbett, under cross-examination, denied that this conversation had taken place. There was also a second contradiction between Garbett’s evidence and that of Lawton. Garbett stated that “an indorsement on a letter of application for shares was in the defendant’s handwriting” (Morning Post, 17 February 1847, p.7). Lawton stated that “[those] words ‘Very good, J. Griffiths’, were in the handwriting of a John Griffiths, the defendant’s brother, whom he had seen write them” (St James’s Chronicle, 18 February 1847, p.8). Following the Judge’s summing-up, “The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £30 3s. 6d.” (loc. cit.). It is easy to see why the jury were skeptical about the defence case. But Garbett may not have been as reliable a witness as he at this stage appeared to be. Garbett was tried at the Old Bailey in May 1847 on a charge of “feloniously forging and uttering a bill of exchange for the payment of £50 with intent to defraud”, and found guilty (Wolverhampton Chronicle, 19 May 1847, p3). Garbett had admitted this forgery during the proceedings of a civil case (not involving SG) in late March 1847, but after spending until November in prison, he was pardoned on the grounds that his admission during that civil case should not have been used in evidence against him at the Old Bailey. In 1849 Garbett was struck off the roll of attorneys on the grounds of his having committed perjury in an affidavit he made that was used in a civil action heard earlier in that year, and in 1856 his application for re-admission was opposed by the Law Society, and refused by the Court of Common Pleas (London Standard, 24 May 1856, p1). He had been adjudicated bankrupt in September 1846, and in February 1847 his conduct of his affairs was called into question at his certificate hearing, with this resulting in his certificate being suspended for 18 months (Staffordshire Advertiser, 26 August 1848, p5). Garbett appears to have been a close friend of SG’s prior to the bursting of the ‘Railway Mania’ bubble. SG may have been reluctant to directly press an allegation of forgery against his former friend during these proceedings. The newspaper reports of this hearing all describe SG’s brother Joseph as “residing at Wolverhampton”, but they differ as regards his occupation: some describing him as “a tradesman”, others as a commission agent. Towards the end of 1848, Joseph sailed to Australia, and does not appear to have returned to Wolverhampton until mid-1852.
18 November 1847	In the Court of Exchequer, Westminster, the Lord Chief Baron gave his judgment on the appeal made by Bailey re. the verdict against him in the Excise case of 18 June 1846 (see above). The judgment was that “The Court did not think that in common parlance the word ‘spirit’ ought to be considered as comprehending sweet spirits of nitre, which was a known merchantable article of commerce. …The Court considered the meaning of the term spirit was confined to inflammable and intoxicating beverages.  … the defendant was entitled to the judgment”. (Morning Advertiser, 19 November 1847, p.1). This judgment meant that the fine imposed on SG on 18 June 1846 should not have been imposed. The two to three months he had been imprisoned in Warwick Gaol for the non-payment of that fine therefore came to an end.
12 March 1848	Frederick Ridgway Griffiths, son of SG and Rebecca, was born at Temple Street, Wolverhampton. SG registered the birth on 28 March 1848, and Frederick’s middle name was recorded as ‘Ridgeway’. The ‘e’ may have been unintentional. He was baptized as Frederick Ridgway Griffiths on 6 April 1848 at St Peter’s, Wolverhampton, with SG’s occupation recorded as “Oil Merchant”. He was the eldest of Samuel and Rebecca’s sons to survive infancy and live to be an adult.

Some Notes on the Later Life of Samuel Griffiths.

20 July 1850	Laura Griffiths, daughter of SG and Rebecca, was born at Waterloo Road, Wolverhampton. Rebecca registered the birth on 29 August 1850, and recorded SG’s occupation as “Oil Merchant”. I have not been able to find a record of Laura’s baptism.
24 November 1851	Alice Elizabeth Griffiths, daughter of SG and Rebecca, was born at Waterloo Road, Wolverhampton. Rebecca registered the birth on 2 January 1852, recording SG’s occupation as “Oil Merchant”. I have not been able to find a record of Alice Elizabeth’s baptism.
20 December 1851	John Mansfield, the father of SG’s first wife Maria (1820-1838) provided assistance to SG to allow him to increase the indebtedness of “Samuel Griffiths & Co.” to the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking Company. Mansfield did this by giving the bank a mortgage over some properties he owned. (T.N.A. C15/723/W176). On 31 July 1852, John Mansfield established a trust by settling these properties mortgaged to the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank (subject to that mortgage) on SG for the term of his life, then with remainder to Rebecca for her life, then with remainder to three of SG and Rebecca’s children (Frederick Ridgway Griffiths, Laura Griffiths, and Alice Elizabeth Griffiths), and then with remainder to the children of those three (loc. cit.). The establishment of this trust meant that these properties did not form part of Mansfield’s estate when he died some seven weeks later.
26 January 1853	SG’s son “Murray Griffith” was born at Waterloo Road, Wolverhampton. This birth was registered by Rebecca on 2 March, with the child’s name recorded as “Samuel James Murray Griffiths”, and father’s occupation as “Oil Merchant”.
20 May 1853	SG filed a “Petition for Private Arrangements” on this date in the Court of Bankruptcy for the Birmingham District. He is recorded as “of Wolverhampton, … Oil and Iron Merchant, Dealer and Chapman, trading under the firm or style of Samuel Griffiths and Company. The Staffordshire Advertiser (28 May 1853, p.5) reported that the filing of this petition followed a meeting of SG’s creditors held on this day at the Swan Hotel: “To prevent a judgment to the prejudice of the general body of the creditors, and for the purpose of obviating a notice of bankruptcy, which would have been completed on the following day, they determined upon an application to the Court of Bankruptcy for a private arrangement under the control of the Court. The meeting was then adjourned for three weeks”. In August 1858, SG attributed this 1853 failure of his “to the failure of Sir Robert Price and Mr. George Hennett who owed him £36,000.” (The Times, 23 August 1858, p5, col.4).
10 November 1854	SG’s daughter Catharine Marian was born at Stafford road, Wolverhampton. SG registered the birth on 13 December 1854 reporting Stafford Road as his residential address and his “Rank or Profession” as “Gentleman”.
17 February 1855	The entry “Samuel Griffiths, late of Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, Commission Agent. -in the Gaol at Stafford” appeared in the list of this date headed: “Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors: Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional assignee the Estates and Effects of the following persons” (London Gazette, 20 February 1855, pp.696-7). This appears to be the occasion of SG being “cast into prison” which he said on 27 January 1858 had interfered with his resumption of business activities in the wake of his 1853 scheme of arrangement. SG gave an account of this Stafford Gaol episode during his cross-examination in the Nisi Prius Court, Warwickshire Summer Assizes, on 9 August 1862, in the hearing of his action against W. H. Duignan for libel and slander.  “Now we will come to Stafford. When I failed and made an arrangement, Mr. Garbett paid a bill of mine …I had given the bill to a man in Birmingham who sold chimney pieces. I forget his name now. Well the bill came back to me, and I was sent to prison; and as I had no money to pay it with, I was obliged to pass through the court.” (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 11 August 1862, p.3).
1 June 1855	When SG’s statements of account for the period 1 June 1855 to 10 February 1858 were filed in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court in June 1858, the Birmingham Daily Post reported that 1 June 1855 had been the time “Mr. Griffiths recommenced business after his previous failure” (Birmingham Daily Post, 14 June 1858, p.4).
22 January 1857	It was reported that SG had been the successful bidder at the auction (held on 8 January 1857) of “The Larches”, Tettenhall-road, Wolverhampton. He was reported as having paid £3500 “including the price of some adjacent land”. The auctioneer had described the house as “designed by Mr. [Robert] Ebbels, the eminent architect of Tettenhall … [and] a chef-d’oeuvre of the Italian school … its erection had cost upwards of £4800.” (The Morning Chronicle (London), 27 January 1857). When SG was being questioned in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court on 9 August 1858, he stated he had paid £3240 for “The Larches”, but he denied having bought adjacent land. The interchange went: “Q. Did you purchase, for £7,185, land adjoining? A. No, I never did. There was talk about it, and it was understood that I was going to purchase, but I never did. Q. Were you to give £6,185 for the land, and £1,000 to the allottees? A. It was talked about, but it was never consummated; there was no contract signed that I know of. Q. Did you take possession of it? A. Yes. Q. And on the two properties you laid out more than £3,000? A. I spent very much more on my own than on the other. Q. Did you spend £500 in carrying out the design of laying out the two properties? A. Yes.” (Wolverhampton Chronicle, 11 August 1858, p.5).
1 June 1857	SG presided at an evening function attended by nearly 1000 persons to raise funds for the erection of a new Wesleyan chapel at Wednesfield Heath. “Mr. Samuel Griffiths of Wolverhampton was called to the chair, and in his opening address stated that the Chapel Building Committee had already paid a deposit of £100 on account of the land purchased for the site of the intended building, and hoped to realise by the present meeting sufficient to pay the remainder of the purchase money” (Staffordshire Advertiser, 6 June 1857, p.4).
July 1857	SG bought Sir Edwin Landseer’s picture “Saved” for 1500 guineas. The picture was bought in the name of John Gibbons Lowe, the cashier of the bank “Messrs. Goodricke and Holyoake” in Wolverhampton. It is not clear whether SG and Lowe had bought as co-owners, or whether SG had borrowed the bulk of the purchase money from Messrs. Holyoake, and the use of Lowe’s name signalled that the picture stood as security for that loan. When questioned about this purchase in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court on 9 August 1858, SG stated that he had included only the cash payment he had made (250 guineas), in the figure for his expenditure on “household furniture and effects” reported as part of his accounting statements filed with the Court. He also stated that the picture had increased in value since he had bought it. Landseer had become seriously ill during the summer of 1857 and there was speculation that “Saved” (completed in 1856), would represent his last major work. SG stated: “It is worth 3,000 guineas; Landseer will never paint such another picture” (Wolverhampton Chronicle, 11 August 1858, p.5.  Questioned further about his purchases of artworks, SG said that in August 1857, he had paid 200 guineas for “one of young Wilson’s pictures, a sea piece, but I bought no other expensive pictures, simply little things that I liked” (loc. cit.). In November 1857 SG parted with the Wilson picture, giving it up to Mr. Holyoake (the banker) in repayment of a debt. Holyoake’s cashier could not remember whether this picture had been handed over before or after the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank had stopped payments (Wolverhampton Chronicle, 3 March 1858, p.5).
14 November 1857	One of SG’s biggest clients in his metal-broking and bill-discounting business, Messrs. Riley and Co., of the Millfield Furnaces, Bilston, announced their suspension of payments on the evening of this day (a Saturday). This firm was later reported to have been paying SG at the rate of £1,000 per year for his broking services, and to have “dealt in warrants for pig iron and in the purchase and sale of iron and materials to the extent of 100,000 tons at a uniform loss, for the purpose of raising money on bills given and received in these transactions” (Staffordshire Advertiser, 30 January 1858, p.2). And during the two years prior to this suspension of payments the firm had paid SG £2,266 in discounts and interest in respect of his bill-discounting services (Wolverhampton Chronicle, 7 July 1858, p.6).The circular issued by the firm announcing its stoppage of payments read: “Sir, – The severe monetary pressure of the last few weeks having rendered it impossible for our Bankers to afford us the usual accommodation, and having by the same inability caused the suspension of several firms indebted to us, we are under the painful necessity of suspending payment. Our books are now in the hands of an Accountant, and the accounts due from us are in course of collection. By Thursday next we hope to be in a position to fix an early day in the ensuing week for the meeting of our creditors, when we shall lay before them a full statement of our assets and liabilities; and make such a proposal as we hope will meet with the approbation of all parties. We are &c. Riley and Son.” (as reproduced in the Birmingham Journal, 21 November 1857, p.6). It would have been expected in Wolverhampton and its district that a default by Messrs. Riley would have significant consequences for the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank. This announcement on the Saturday evening was probably therefore a factor behind the run on that Bank which commenced when it opened its doors on Monday 16 November.
13 January 1858	SG filed a petition under the private arrangement clauses of the Bankruptcy Act. On the following Saturday (16 January), the Staffordshire Advertiser’s “Trade of the District” column contained a fairly lengthy segment on this, including background on the lead-up to this filing, and also a biographical sketch of SG – which SG later asserted had been produced by George Robinson, the solicitor of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank (see entry at 22 January 1858, below).The ‘background’ to SG’s petition contained in this piece was probably  also sourced from Robinson. This segment commenced: “The event of the week, and perhaps of the crisis, is the failure of Mr. Samuel Griffiths, who has for the last few years been very extensively engaged as a metal broker and in discounting bills in this district”.  It continued “From the first indications of the crisis anticipations as to his fate have formed the subject of conversation and speculation in all commercial circles.; and when the admirable analysis of the debtors of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank was delivered by their solicitor, Mr. Robinson, it was felt that the absence of his [SG’s] name left a great deficiency in that otherwise comprehensive statement. The general explanation given of the non-appearance of his name in the list of failures was, that very soon after the stoppage of the bank he made a definite promise of payment within a certain period, which having been partially kept, a little time was given him to see if this promise would be carried out. Failing its fulfilment, on Tuesday last [12 January] a notice of bankruptcy was delivered to him, upon which, early on the following morning, he filed a petition under the private arrangement clauses of the Bankruptcy Act, in the Court at Birmingham, and obtained a month’s protection on condition of a messenger of the court immediately entering into possession of his property. No doubt is entertained that the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank will require a thorough and searching investigation of the affairs of Mr. Griffiths in the Bankruptcy Court, in which case startling disclosures are anticipated as to the nature of the transactions which have prevailed in the iron trade of South Staffordshire”. (Staffordshire Advertiser, 16 January 1858, p.5). The reference here to Robinson’s ‘admirable analysis…” relates to the statement Robinson read to a meeting held at the Swan Hotel in Wolverhampton on 21 December 1857.
16 January 1858	The Staffordshire Advertiser (a weekly) published a biographical sketch of SG, in its “Trade of the District” column (p.5), as part of its segment on SG’s petition lodged in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court on 13 January). The first paragraph read: “The career of Mr. Samuel Griffiths has been of an extraordinary character. Born of parents of comparatively humble circumstances, he commenced life as a druggist, in a small shop in Wolverhampton, and whilst there was the subject of an information on the part of the excise authorities, under which he was fined. Shortly afterwards he took a larger druggist’s shop in Dudley-street, Wolverhampton; and was afterwards engaged in the manufacture of grease, and again became the subject of an excise information, and in default of payment of the penalty inflicted was imprisoned in Warwick goal. Shortly afterwards he entered very largely into the railway enterprises which were then so rife throughout the country, and is reported to have been very intimate with Hudson, Sadleir, David Leopold Lewis, and other speculators, having, it is stated, been in company with Sadleir at four o1clock of the day he committed suicide. In 1846 he became bankrupt, his liabilities being stated by himself at £10,070, on which a dividend of, we believe, 1s 2d was paid. In his fiat of bankruptcy he appeared as provisional committee-man of nearly twenty railway companies, of which certainly not more than one or two, if any, have been constructed. In 1849 (sic) he again filed a petition under the arrangement clauses of the Bankruptcy Act, setting forth his liabilities as amounting to £40,900, his net assets being stated as little more than £1,600.” The Staffordshire Advertiser later stated (30 January 1858, p.2) that the date ‘1849’ given there was an error, and should have been 1853. But in later years, the erroneous date of 1849 was often given (probably taken from this source) as the date of SG’s second bankruptcy, which can be confusing! The second paragraph of the biographical sketch read: “Since that period he has held a most prominent position in the district as a broker of pig iron, and in the management of bill transactions. Besides his accounts with local banks he has kept an account with the well-known house of Overend, Gurney and Co. of London, through whom he has discounted bills to a large extent. It is credibly stated that bills have been passed through his hands to the extent of half a million within a comparatively short period. His present liabilities are not accurately known, but are estimated at from £80,000 to £120,000. Up to a recent period he was a member of the Wolverhampton Board of Guardians, has had for some years, and still has, a seat on the Wolverhampton Corporation, was at the last election a candidate for the office of alderman (for which, however, he received only two votes), aspired to the office of mayor, and it is credibly stated has asserted his intention of becoming a candidate for the representation of the borough in Parliament”. The final paragraph of this Staffordshire Advertiser segment on SG referred to a “brochure” which had been published on the same day SG lodged his petition: “vindicating the character of Mr. Griffiths from the aspersions cast upon it, and representing him as having been a main pillar of support to the Wolverhampton Bank and a friendly prop to many weak firms, which but for his generous aid must long ago have succumbed”. I have not so far been able to set eyes on a copy of this “brochure”, which the Staffordshire Advertiser reported was titled “The Mysteries of the Iron Trade, by a Chemical Agent”. For SG’s response to this biographical sketch, see the entry at 22 January 1858, below).
18 January 1858	The Birmingham Daily Post reproduced in full (at p.4) the biographical sketch of SG which had appeared in the Staffordshire Advertiser of 16 January, and prefaced that with some additional unflattering comments: “The Failure of Mr. Samuel Griffiths … No one was surprised, the wonder being that his stoppage did not occur early enough for his being included in Mr. George Robinson’s celebrated ‘message’ to the financial filibusterers of the district. Mr. Griffiths has filed his petition for protection under the private arrangement clauses of the Bankruptcy Act, by which all the explanations he may vouchsafe his creditors will be given in a snug room, to which neither press nor public are admitted. It is probable, however, that a successful effort will be made to declare him a bankrupt in the normal way. His solicitor is Mr. Edwin Wright of Birmingham. Mr. Griffiths has retired to fashionable Leamington during this fresh crisis in his fortunes. He talks very freely about his position; says he cannot tell to a hundred thousand pounds what his liabilities are, (which is probably the truth,) thinks they may reach five or six hundred pounds (which is probably not the truth,) makes no secret of the fact that the Wolverhampton Bank possesses the most of his assets; hints that the title deeds  of his splendid mansion, ‘The Larches’, are not in the bank coffers, but are held for some ‘sacred trust’, in which one ‘near and dear to him’ is chiefly concerned – that trust not being the satisfaction of his creditors’ claims. His dealings have, no doubt, been very extensive for the last few years. Whether or not he made the return himself we cannot say, but it is an undisputable fact that in 1856(sic) he was assessed to the income-tax at £10,000”.  After reproducing the passage from the Staffordshire Advertiser quoted in the entry for 16 January 1858 above, the BDP went on to give some more information on the segment of the brochure, “The Mysteries of the Iron Trade”, which the Staffordshire Advertiser had referred to as “vindicating the character of Mr. Griffiths”. It would appear that in that brochure (or pamphlet), each of the principal characters had been given a name which represented a thin ‘disguise’ of the real name of the person being referred to. SG was “Mr. Samuels”. According to the pamphlet, rumours had been spread that “ascribed the ruin of the bank to certain enterprising individuals in the town, who it was said had drawn too freely on them … Mr. Samuels got the credit for owing the bank a quarter of a million at least; but it turned out, on looking at the books, that there was an actual balance of £5,000 in his favour, and that he was one of the best supporters the establishment ever had. Indeed he has been known to bring down from London, often in the train, just as personal luggage, a little bag, or a box, with three or four thousand sovereigns in it, and which always served, whether required or not, to replenish the till at the church yard.” It should be noted at this point that ‘The old church yard’, was the (actual) street address of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank. This passage from the pamphlet, as quoted in the BDP continued: “Nor was Mr. Samuels patriotism confined to the bank; for it appears that when accommodation was difficult to be had, he lent a helping hand to upwards of a hundred persons in trade, at less than the current rate of discount, and who but for his timely assistance must inevitably have gone to the wall. … we believe it happened not unfrequently that some very tall members of society, who gossiped about Mr. Samuels, and professed to entertain a moral repugnance to him, were to be found afterwards in his private counting-house, with a piece of coloured paper in their hands, which had been evidently torn from a banker’s cheque book.”
19 January 1858	SG sent a circular, dated this day, to his creditors: “Gentlemen – It is with deep regret I am obliged to inform you I have suspended payment, owing to the urgent pressure of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking Company. I have, under the advice of my solicitors, adopted measures necessary to protect my estate, for the general benefit of my creditors. The extensive amount of discount accommodation which I have afforded to all of the fallen houses in the trade, renders me liable as an indorsee (sic) to the payment of a very considerable amount, which is the cause of my suspension. I have placed my books in the hands of Mr. Kettle, accountant, of Birmingham, who, with the assistance of my solicitors, Messrs. H. and J.E. Underhill, will be prepared to lay a statement of my affairs before my creditors at an early day, of which due notice shall be given. Any iron or warrants for iron which I hold as broker for my principals, remain with me at their disposal, and will be instantly transferred if required. I remain, your’s, very respectfully, S Griffiths.” (As reproduced in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, 25 January 1858, p.3, with the introductory sentence: “The following letter which is a curiosity in its way has been addressed by the Insolvent to his creditors:“).
21 January 1858	George Robinson, acting on behalf of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank, applied in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court for “a summons to procure the attendance for the purpose of examination of Mr. Samuel Griffiths.” This application was granted and 27 January 1858 was fixed for the examination (Staffordshire Advertiser, 23 January 1858, p.5). Robinson’s purpose in taking this step was to derail SG’s attempt to have his insolvency dealt with under the ‘private arrangement clauses’ of the Bankruptcy Act. The Staffordshire Advertiser sought to explain this to its readers: “It does not appear to be generally known that a provision exists in the Bankruptcy Act for bringing petitions for private arrangements into open court, on the application of any single creditor, on proof of certain facts in relation to the petitioner or his petition.” The relevant provision was then quoted in full. In essence it sets out a series of possible grounds on which “it shall be lawful for the [Bankruptcy] Court to adjudge the petitioner a bankrupt, and to adjourn all further proceedings in the matter to the public court”. The possible grounds include: “[it being] shown to the satisfaction of the Court, by any creditor, that the debts of such petitioner, or any part thereof, have been contracted by reason of any manner of fraud or breach of trust, or without reasonable probability at the time of contract of being able to pay the same …”; and “[it being shown] that he has not made a full disclosure of his debts and credits, estate and effects … or that he has postponed the presentation of his petition longer than was excusable; or if within three months of the time of presenting his petition he shall have assigned, transferred, or made away with any portion of his estate or effects, otherwise than in due course…” (loc. cit.) Robinson’s summons did not indicate which of the various possible grounds he was expecting to be able to use to derail SG’s insolvency being dealt with via the private arrangement route, a point which SG’s solicitor sought to use to block Robinson’s examination of SG on 27 January.
22 January 1858	A letter to the editor, signed by SG and dated thus, was published in the Wolverhampton Chronicle of 27 January 1858, p.4. “Sir, – A statement having appeared in one or two papers, making most untruthful, cruel, and uncalled-for attacks upon my character, I shall feel obliged by your publishing the following explanation. It is falsely stated that I was on intimate terms with the notorious Sadleir. I beg to state that I never spoke to him but twice in my life – and this, I believe was in the Royal Swedish Railway Office, in London, in the presence of the Secretary of the Company – and a very extensive ironmaster of this district, a client of mine, was with me. I saw him twice on that day, and my business was to sell him £20,000 of property, and receive payment. I declined the transaction with Sadleir after the two interviews above referred to, and this was the only occasion that I ever saw him in my life. I have had nothing whatever to do with him in any way, nor do I know anything about him. Again, it is said, I have settled certain properties on my children or my wife. This is utterly untrue. I have not settled one penny on any child of mine, or my wife, or anyone else. [New paragraph] With regard to Warwick goal – this occurred about eleven or twelve years ago, and the facts are these: – Myself and other highly respectable parties in the drug trade were proceeded against by the Excise for purchasing Sp. Nit. (sic) although the trade up to that period had done business in it without interference from the Excise. Very well: I had just at this moment passed through the Bankruptcy Court, and as I had no money to defend the action brought by the Court, judgement went by default; although, as the sequel proved there was no ground for the action, I was incarcerated  for a fine of £200 imposed by the Excise. Mr. Bailey, of Wolverhampton, and others, who had money to defend these actions by the Excise, obtained a verdict in their favour in the Court of Exchequer, for the very same purchase of the very same article; thus legalizing the act for which a judgment was obtained and a fine imposed against me by the Excise – simply because judgment went by default, through my inability to find funds to defend myself. [New paragraph] I shall not attempt to wade through the muddled stream of abuse heaped upon me. My conduct, in whatever position I may be placed, will show that I have acted uprightly in all my business transactions. Nevertheless, I cannot take it otherwise than cruel, that I should thus be attacked, when everyone knows that my losses are so great – and, likewise, previous to a meeting of my creditors. I think you will agree with me, that it is but fair that should have taken place before any comments were made upon my affairs. I am, Sir, Yours respectfully, S. Griffiths, Staffordshire Iron Wharf, Wolverhampton.” For the ‘statement’ which this letter responded to, see the entries at 16 January and 18 January 1858, above. It seems clear SG believed that the content for the statement had come from George Robinson. In his testimony before the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court on 9 August 1858, SG stated: “[George Robinson] has admitted to myself and before Mr. Registrar Waterfield that he dictated to the man who sits there (pointing to a reporter) all the scandals and disgraceful libels which the Staffordshire Advertiser was the only paper that would publish” (Wolverhampton Chronicle, 11 August 1858, p.5).
25 January 1858	The Times, in its “State of Trade” column, under the heading “Birmingham, January 23”, reported: “… One of the largest failures of the district, and among the last to be announced – that of Mr. Samuel Griffiths of Wolverhampton – creates great interest among commercial men. His involvements, in connexion with those of other suspending firms, are said to be immense, and his entire estate is now in possession of the Court of Bankruptcy. He will appear on summons … [on 27 January]. The Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking Company are among his largest creditors” (The Times, 25 January 1858, p.4, col 3).
2 February 1858	A meeting of SG’s creditors was held at the Swan Hotel, Wolverhampton. The statement of his affairs presented to the meeting (by a Birmingham-based accountant) was reproduced in the following day’s Birmingham Daily Post (p.3). The liabilities side consisted of two parts £28,461 of definite liabilities to creditors plus an unspecified “portion” of £135,087 worth of commercial bills which he had “endorsed” and was thus potentially liable for, in the event of defaults on those bills higher up the chain. A list of the bills was made available to the meeting so that attendees could form their own opinions of the likely extent of the “portion”. But that list is not reproduced in the BDP report. On the assets side, the total was £26,818 which included an estimate of £4000 for “The Larches” (but mortgaged to the Town and District Bank of Birmingham) and £800 for “household effects”. Griffiths’ solicitor stated that he had filed a proposal to vest “the entire of his real and personal estate in the hands of the official assignee, and the estate be realized as rapidly as possible in order that the creditors generally might have whatever it would yield”, and suggested that under the alternative of an open court process of bankruptcy “legal and court expenses would swallow up the greater part of the estate”. Although a motion to accept this proposal was passed on a show of hands at the meeting, the number voting was very low, and the BDP report ends by stating “There appears to be little doubt but that the estate will go into open Court”.
3 February 1858	The Times published a piece on SG’s examination in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court on 27 January 1858 in its “Money-Market and City Intelligence” section. The press had been excluded from that hearing. The Times was therefore probably relying here on the reports published in the Birmingham press. The Times’s city editor had made some general observations and comments regarding “the surfeit of insolvencies” that had been occurring across the UK, including cases involving bank insolvencies, and he continued: “Meanwhile, however, a little narrative from the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court is furnished in the journals of that town, which may, even in the present weariness, attract a passing notice. The novel point in this case is that the individual subjected to examination appears to be what is commonly termed ‘a character’. Nothing could be more humiliating than the examples hitherto given of the mean, ignorant, and spiritless race lately figuring as the personages who have swayed the commerce of the country, but a touch of originality now peeps out. A Mr. Samuel Griffiths, apparently a bill discounter, has been examined at the instance of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank, which suspended in November, but has lately resumed, and he has shown a determination to stand at bay. If he is to be brought down he will make a clean breast, and others must come down with him. Mr. Griffiths has been insolvent only on two previous occasions – namely, in 1846 and 1853 – and during the subsequent four years has carried on business to an extent such as would be warranted by his experience. He has apparently come under liabilities in the shape of endorsements in connexion with the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank to the amount of £150,000, and is now indebted £22,000 to that concern. But he has his own tale to tell. ‘When the bank’, he said, ‘had not means to discount they sent their rotten customers to me. I used to discount their bills and give my own at 14 days’ date. The bank could then discount my bills by giving theirs at 14 days’ date, and with the money I met my bill with they paid their own’. The description reads like a discovery of perpetual motion, and it is plain that Mr. Griffiths and the Staffordshire and Wolverhampton Bank had, as nearly as can be conceived, reached perfection in the art of creating those never-failing facilities, for which currency theorists flood us with pamphlets. Mr. Griffiths is evidently a genius and not an ordinary financier, and he has the susceptibilities of his class. On many occasions he says he has saved the Bank, and when he referred to the circumstances connected with those efforts he was, according to the report, ‘much moved’. But his vigour soon returned, and, ‘rubbing his hands with great animation’, he announced that henceforth he would show his ungrateful friends no quarter. One instance is mentioned where good advice had been disregarded. ‘A meeting of a person’s creditors was called; 2s 6d in the £ was offered; the directors were urged to take it; they refused, and lent the party £100,000 to carry on, every penny of which they have lost’. And yet, as it was added, they have been ‘paying dividends of 18 per cent out of capital’. Mr. Griffiths has been reproached with conspiracy, but his candid nature seems to repel such an accusation. ‘Talk about conspiracy’, he exclaimed, ‘who are the conspirators? I am the largest shareholder in the bank, as I hold 200 shares, and, instead of the bank examining me, before long they shall be examined themselves, and their solicitor, with his high-flown morality promulgated by those spotless directors, may preach his doctrine for their sanctification’. With this promise the inquiry stands adjourned to the 10th inst. Mr. Griffiths says he will make such disclosures as will astonish not merely the directors, but also their legal adviser. Under such circumstances, perhaps, curiosity will be again roused in the expectation that the moral of these events may not even yet have been altogether exhausted. It does not follow that Mr. Griffiths in his next display will maintain his statements or do justice to his former self; but it is narrated that the feeling of all the persons present appeared to be much in his favour. Great expectations obviously rest upon him, and it can hardly be doubted that in Birmingham and the iron districts to-morrow week will be a great day.” The appearance of this piece in the Times does not appear to have gone down well with the directors of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank. On this same day George Robinson sent a letter of reply to the editor of the Times, which was published in its issue of 5 February 1858, and reproduced in full in the Staffordshire Advertiser of the following day.
6 February 1858	The Staffordshire Advertiser contained a segment (at p.5) following-up on its piece published the preceding Saturday regarding SG’s insolvency. As with that, this piece was distinctly unsympathetic towards SG. At its centre, there was a reproduction in full of the letter published in The Times of 5 February 1858, written by George Robinson, responding on behalf of the directors of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank, to the piece that had been published in The Times of 3 February regarding SG’s insolvency (see above). Robinson’s letter read: “… The attention of the directors of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank has been called to your city article in the Times of [3 February]. It is impossible to complain of the description you give of Mr. Griffiths, but when you quote what has been given as his examination in the Bankruptcy Court, that ‘a meeting of a person’s creditors was called; 2s 6d in the pound was offered; the directors were urged to take it; they refused, and lent the party £100,000 to carry on, every penny of which they have lost’, you are unconsciously led into a fable. He did not make that statement on his examination, and, if he had done so, the Court would at once have been told there was not a word of truth in it. The extraordinary influence which this man obtained over the late bank manager may have led to some such other irregularities as you notice in the discount of the paper he brought, but it was wholly unknown to the directors until they discovered the position in which they were placed. I am Sir, your obedient servant, George Robinson, Wolverhampton, Feb. 3”. In addition to  reproducing Robinson’s letter to the Times, the Staffordshire Advertiser prefaced it with a brief editorial comment: “We remarked last week that an account of the proceedings in the private examination of Mr. Griffiths in the Bankruptcy Court bore strong internal evidence of having proceeded from some person in the interest of the insolvent. It now turns out not only that this account was one-sided, but that it contained a statement never uttered on that occasion. This false account of the proceedings has come under the notice of the city editor of the Times…” (loc.cit.).
10 February 1858	An adjudication of Bankruptcy was made against SG on this date. He is cited as “of Wolverhampton, … Broker, Merchant, Dealer and Chapman”. (London Gazette, 12 February 1858, p.753). The process which led to this adjudication was reported upon in the Birmingham Daily Post of 11 February 1858 (p.3). It commenced with the adjourned hearing under Griffiths’ petition for private arrangement being called on in the Registrar’s rooms of Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, before Mr. Registrar Waterfield. Griffiths’ solicitor said that “Mr. Griffiths, finding it undesirable that he should go on with the arrangement with creditors which he originally proposed had consented to his being adjudicated a bankrupt. The petition would therefore be transferred to the public Court.” The solicitor representing the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking Company said “this was the very course which I came here to insist upon, so that the bankrupt has merely anticipated what would have been done in a few minutes”. The Registrar set 22 February for “the choice of assignees [of Griffiths’ estate]”
22 February 1858	At the meeting in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court to choose assignees of SG’s estate, there was some discussion over increasing Griffiths’ allowance from £3 per week to £5, but it was “ultimately agreed that the allowance should remain at £3 per week until the last examination meeting”. (Birmingham Daily Post, 23 February 1858, p.1). John Neve, solicitor, of Wolverhampton, was appointed assignee, having been nominated at the request of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank.
10 May 1858	The “last examination” of Griffiths in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, which had been adjourned on 22 March because of delays in the preparation of his statements of accounts on a basis satisfactory to the Court, was adjourned again on the same grounds. SG’s solicitor’s explanation for the delays stressed the complexity of Griffiths’ business affairs: “The transactions of Mr. Griffiths had been more than a million [sterling], indeed nearly two millions during the period over which the balance sheet would extend”. (Birmingham Daily Post, 11 May 1858, p.1). Griffiths was again unsuccessful in seeking to have his allowance raised from £3 per week to £5. In applying for that increase, his solicitor stated that he had eight children to support, and that the sale of his furniture had realized £1800, a sum much greater than expected.
12 June 1858	SG filed his statements of accounts in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court. These covered the period from 1 June 1855 to 10 February 1858. The latter date was the day SG had been adjudicated bankrupt, and The Birmingham Daily Post’s report of 14 June 1858 (p.4) stated that 1 June 1855 was the date at which “Mr. Griffiths recommenced business after his previous failure”. During that 32 months period as a whole SG’s total income from net business profits, commissions and rent was given as £17,219, representing about £6,500 per annum, while his “housekeeping and personal expenses” were put at a total of £4,100, a little in excess of £1,500 p.a. The BDP interpreted these figures as contradicting “the reports in circulation in relation to Mr. Griffiths’s extravagance [during the period prior to his failure]” (loc.cit.). As at 10 February 1858, the value of SG’s total assets was put at £23,537 while his liabilities were reported at £24,435 in debts plus some undefined portion of the £135,087-worth of contingent liabilities he had incurred through endorsing commercial bills for which other parties bore primary liability. A number of those “other parties” had suspended payments either before 10 February 1858 or since. One of the criticisms levelled against SG by his more hostile creditors was that he should have known that many of those clients of his were at high risk of defaulting, and therefore the “profits” he had booked his business as having made from endorsing their bills were “fictitious profits”, which should not have been treated by SG as available for him to spend.
14 June 1858	A case was heard in the Wolverhampton County Court in which the key issue under dispute was whether a particular house in Whitmore Reans, Wolverhampton was owned by SG or by his brother Thomas. Henry Dain, who had been the tenant of the house since 1855, stated that he had taken-up that tenancy “from a person representing himself as the agent of Mr. Samuel Griffiths, and the rent was regularly paid to the same person as the agent for Mr. Samuel Griffiths. Soon after [Dain] became the occupier of the house he was introduced to Mr. Samuel Griffiths as one of his tenants, and he requested him to build him an oven and a pigstye in connection with the house, and to make a few repairs, to which he consented, and which were afterwards done. On Mr. Samuel Griffiths’s affairs becoming embarrassed, a person called upon [Dain] representing himself as agent for Mr. Thomas Griffiths, who he said was landlord of the house, demanding the rent in his name”. The upshot was that Dain refused to pay rent to that person, and Thomas Griffiths subsequently sent in bailiffs to seize goods belonging to Dain and sell them to cover that rent. Dain’s case was that that was illegal, and he claimed damages from Thomas Griffiths. In his evidence to the Court, Thomas Griffiths “swore that he had been the sole owner of the property since 1854; that the rents had been during that period collected by his agent, and paid into the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank to the joint account of his sister, Miss Catherine Griffiths, and himself”. The jury’s decision was to believe Dain and not Thomas Griffiths. Damages were awarded against Thomas Griffiths. The Staffordshire Advertiser’s report of the case (19 June 1858, p.5) concluded by pointing out that the jury’s verdict recognized Samuel Griffiths as the owner of the property, and thus “This case possesses a special interest to Mr. Griffiths’s bankruptcy”.
12 July 1858	This was the day fixed for SG’s ‘last examination’ in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court. The hearing turned out to be something of an anticlimax. According to The Morning Chronicle (London): “Considerable interest was manifested in the [case], and the court was crowded during the hearing, which lasted only a few minutes. … Much uncertainty prevailed as to the course which the assignees would be advised to take, and while on the one hand it was thought that a lengthened examination of the bankrupt must take place, it was said on the other hand that such an examination would not answer the purpose of the assignees. Some few days ago, Mr. Rupert Kettle, of the Oxford circuit, was entrusted with the brief on behalf of the assignees; since then, however, various consultations on either side were held, the result of which was that up to the very moment the case was called , it was scarcely known how far the inquiry would be pursued.” (The Morning Chronicle, 14 July 1858, p.3). In the event, Kettle was not present in the Court, the assignees being represented by Mr. Knight and George Robinson. Knight told the Court his clients had instructed him to ask for an adjournment, “that a little more time may be allowed” for the assignees’ examination of the accounts SG had filed. When SG’s solicitor objected, Knight argued: “… after so long a time as three or four months has been allowed for the preparation of these accounts, is it too much to ask that something more than three weeks should be allowed the assignees for their investigation?” Commissioner Balguy expressed the view that the examination should be taken at a time when it could be “as complete and satisfactory as possible”, and the hearing was adjourned to 9 August 1858 (loc. cit.). The Wolverhampton Journal published an editorial on this day’s hearing, depicting it as a notable win for SG against the Directors of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank. This editorial was reproduced (apparently in full) as a paid advertisement in the Birmingham Daily Post of 19 July 1858 (at p.3). In the words of the Wolverhampton Journal: “… All Wolverhampton, and all the places spread far round about, know how the Bankrupt [SG] was talked about and talked at; and how, by public advertisement and private circular, anybody who could say anything against him was invited to go and say it to a shrewd solicitor. And what has been the result? Why, that, after nearly six months’ enquiry, when the Bankrupt came up on Monday last, for the last examination, there was not only not one word said against him, but not the slightest desire was shown to examine him, while he was complimented on all hands for the comprehensive and satisfactory manner in which he had made out his accounts, and all discussion as to the propriety of a further examination was put an end to by the Commissioner intimating that it was not a matter of the slightest consequence, since another adjournment would not at all injure the Bankrupt. …It had been talked about that a learned Barrister of the Oxford Circuit, and residing in the immediate neighbourhood of Wolverhampton, had at first been retained on behalf of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank; but that, after mature consideration, the Directors resolved to abandon such a course, and to leave the learned Commissioner to deal with the case as it appeared upon the face of the balance sheet. Those who thoroughly comprehend the position of the Bankrupt and the Directors of the Bank in relation to the public will not be at all surprised at such a result. …But for the liabilities which Mr. Griffiths incurred by writing his name upon [i.e. endorsing] other people’s paper, it is evident he never need to have made himself a bankrupt. These bills are in the hands of the Directors of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank and other banking firms. Those other firms it was said from the first, did not intend to oppose the Bankrupt, being fully satisfied with the manner in which he had transacted his business, and events up to the present confirm the statement. The directors of the Old Church Yard Bank, on the contrary, it was said publicly by those who assumed to speak advisedly, would oppose him to the uttermost. All manner of absurd stories were put about, as reasons for this resolution. He had blinded the Directors, caused the panic, and broken the Bank. But all these stories have vanished into thin air; and the Directors of the Bank now stand confessed as a body of unfortunate bill discounters holding a large number of bills unhappily accepted by a still more unfortunate brother! What could they elicit to his disadvantage, which would not still more disadvantage them? What benefit would it have done them to elicit from him that in two years the Messrs. Riley paid him £2,000 for commission and discount, when the fact was patent to the public that in the same period of time the Rileys had paid the Bank £6,000 on the same account. … A great deal can be said, and we have said it, and shall say it again, against the bill system in the abstract; but the Directors of the Bank, whose folly lies at the foundation of the rotten system of trade which too long and too seriously prevailed in South Staffordshire, must, in common prudence be the last men to throw stones at a fellow bill-broker, whom their own stoppage of payment forced with others into the Bankruptcy Court, and where they must have gone themselves but for the benevolence of their brother shareholders. … This, however, is certain as regards Mr. Griffiths’s case, that but for the thousand and one gossiping rumours so industriously spread, and it would now seem without foundation, with regard to him, no one would have been surprised that a merchant whose business was so large that he turned over a million and a half of money in two years, should, when the local bank which everyone trusted, failed, and spread a panic among all classes, have found himself unable to meet his liabilities on the bills of other parties he had endorsed in the regular course of business, had been driven to the Bankruptcy Court.” The Directors of the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank do not appear to have given up the fight, however, and on 9 August 1858, Rupert Kettle was present to conduct a lengthy cross-examination of SG in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court.
28 October 1858	The Times reported: “In the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court the case of Mr. Samuel Griffiths, the bill discounter who failed during the crisis in connexion with the Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Bank, which at the time attracted much attention, has just been decided. The Commissioner awarded Mr. Griffiths a first-class certificate and the general feeling seemed to be that the Wolverhampton Bank had shabbily attempted to make him a scapegoat”. (p.5, col 1).
29 October 1858	The Morning Chronicle (London) reported “The case of Mr. Samuel Griffiths of Wolverhampton, discount broker and metal broker, has terminated in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court in a manner reflecting great credit upon that gentleman. We are the more gratified with this result inasmuch as we predicted that such would be the termination of a case which had for obvious reasons been tried to be made the scapegoat of other parties’ faults. …The result of the investigation into the bankrupt’s affairs is the granting of a first-class certificate, a mark of distinction of which every commercial man has just reason to be proud. There are men to whom the public expression of such a character is more valuable than the realization of a ‘plum’.” (p.2).
28 February 1862	By February 1862 SG was in financial difficulties once more. The London Gazette of  28 February  published a notice for SG’s insolvency to be managed under a “Deed of Inspection”. (Birmingham Daily Post, 6 March 1862, p.3). In July 1862, SG’s legal representative stated in Court (at the Staffordshire Summer Assizes) that this deed had been executed on 22 February 1862, and had been assented to in writing by 167 of SG’s 240 creditors, those 167 being owed £160,000 out of SG’s £202,000 of total debts at that time. (Birmingham Daily Post, 29 July 1862). After it had been executed the deed was lodged with the Bankruptcy Court in London. On 1 March 1862 The Birmingham Journal (p.6) gave some information on SG’s Deed of Inspection. “A fortnight ago Mr. Samuel Griffiths announced in his circular that the Staffordshire ironworks of which he was the principal partner had closed. A few days later rumours were afloat to the effect that Mr. Griffiths had fallen into difficulties, and was endeavouring to extricate himself by an arrangement with his creditors. No meeting has however been called, neither has there been, up to this time, any ‘statement of affairs’ supplied to his creditors; but we are informed that Mr. Griffiths has availed himself of the provisions of the new Bankruptcy Act, and has executed a ‘deed of inspectorship’, by which it is proposed to carry on the works at Windmill End and elsewhere under inspection, for the benefit of the general body of creditors, and to pay the liabilities in full by instalments … The ‘deed’ has been registered in London … the trustees are Mr. Henry Cornfoot of Old Broad Street, London; Mr. Richard Sargeant, of Hastings, Sussex; and Mr. John Percivall of Birmingham. The instalments are to be paid in February, May, August, and November, 1863, and in the same months of 1864.”
31 January 1863	Aris’s Birmingham Gazette (p.6) published an editorial headed “The Affairs of Mr. Samuel Griffiths”. In reading this it should be borne in mind that up to at least April 1861, SG’s residential address was 3 Waterloo Terrace, Wolverhampton. “The dullness of Waterloo Street has again been enlivened, consequent upon another dip into the bottomless well of scandal connected with the affairs of Mr. Samuel Griffiths, ‘the great ironmaster and banker’.  The last coup of Mr. Griffiths is his greatest and grandest effort; his other ‘little affairs’ were sufficiently bold and comprehensive for little minds, but now he has done something worthy to be talked about. He is the most notable bankrupt in the Midlands: to him by right appertains the proud title of Knight Grand Cross of that Legion of Honour, the Bankrupts of the United Kingdom. It is not every man who can lay the flattering unction to his soul to his soul that he has failed for £200,000, and Mr. Samuel Griffiths has accomplished this and something more. To be sure he is no novice at the work, nor is he afflicted with the hesitancy which some weak-minded persons feel on the subject of indebtedness. It is absurd to talk of ‘the failure of Mr. Samuel Griffiths’: who says he has failed in anything – except in the capacity to pay his debts? What may be failure to one man may be success to another; and when the hero of Waterloo (Street) assures the Court that he is ruined, it sounds like a joke, and provokes laughter from all but the creditors. Even the attorneys can be funny, in their grim parchment way, about Mr. Griffiths’s affairs. His own advocate suggests that there might possibly be no objection to an application for an allowance, whereupon the representative of a creditor blandly insinuates that such a proceeding had better be postponed until there is some estate out of which the allowance can be paid. There may be no estate for the creditors, but there must be money somewhere, else there would not be so many lawyers engaged in the case. To suggest vindictiveness is ridiculous; who could be vindictive against Mr. Samuel Griffiths, the liberal employer, the free-handed friend, the man always lavish with of his money – or that of other people? Even the largest creditors don’t like to be too hard upon him, and only demand to prove for a portion of their real claim. In one of these matters a want of unanimity has led to an awkward disclosure. The firm of Allaway put in a claim for about £22,000, but in the bankrupt’s schedule he had only entered them as creditors to the amount of £10,000. This wide discrepancy led to an investigation, not yet finished; and then it came out, according to the statement on oath of the bankrupt (who of course could not be particular to a few thousands) that whereas the Allaways were only credited with £10,000 in the schedule, and had claimed for £32,000, they were actually creditors to the tune of about £50,000. It may be of little avail in a case like this to plead in the interests of morality and justice; but there is a lively prospect that a close scrutiny is intended, which may lead to disclosures interesting – if only by way of warning – to those largely engaged in commercial affairs.”
18 February 1863	In the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, the sitting to appoint the assignees of SG’s estate was held, having been adjourned from 28 January 1863 to enable clarification of which creditors had ‘proved’ what levels of liability from SG, and what degree of ‘say’ each was therefore entitled to in the choice of those assignees. The Birmingham Daily Gazette reported that: “The Court was crowded by persons anxious to hear the proceedings”, and went on to list the names of ten lawyers attending as representatives of various creditors (19 February 1863, p.4). Eventually the representative of the creditors who had lodged the petition for SG’s bankruptcy indicated that he could put forward sufficient voting power “to carry the choice of assignees” and he nominated Mr. William Mills of Edgbaston, coal merchant, and Mr. Henry Derry of Birkenhead, builder and contractor. There were criticisms made regarding the suitability of either man for the role, with one of the creditors asserting that SG had called Mr. Mills his first cousin. And Mills himself stated he was a second cousin of SG’s. The Registrar, however, stated that “unless some good ground should be shown [why they should not be chosen] the selection would stand.” Mills and Derry thus became the assignees under the consolidated proceedings of both the joint petition against Edward B. Thorneycroft and Samuel Griffiths, and the ‘separate’ petition against SG only. There was agreement that the next stage in the proceedings (“the meeting for last examination of the bankrupts”) should be scheduled for 15 April 1862. (loc. cit.).
15 April 1863	At the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, before Mr. Registrar Wilson, the meeting for the last examination and discharge of SG (and of E.B. Thorneycroft) was commenced. Mr. Motteram represented the assignees appointed at the Court’s hearing of 18 February 1862. He said that the assignees had been informed by their accountants that although working “as quickly as possible” they needed a further two months to complete their work on SG’s balance sheet. He added that he “understood the accountants had to go through such a number of books that one or two carts would scarcely contain them, therefore ample time would have to be allowed them”. A number of the creditors expressed their unhappiness with this pace of progress, despite being assured that “Mr. Griffiths was constantly in attendance to enable them [the accountants] to prepare the necessary statements.” One creditor complained “the proceedings were being trifled with, and the object seemed to be to cause delay and to weary out the creditors. They had been told there were £30,000 [of assets] but not a penny had come in …At the next meeting he should look upon another adjournment as certain”. Registrar Wilson ordered the balance sheet to be filed by 1 June, and asked that the other required accounts be also lodged prior to the next meeting, which he scheduled for 1 July 1863. (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 16 April 1863, p.3).
18 April 1863	An editorial in the Birmingham Journal (p.6) commented on the proceedings at SG’s bankruptcy hearing of 15 April: “If we wanted an illustration of the weakness which characterises the present system of bankruptcy administration, we should find it in the case of Samuel Griffiths, where, after the adjudication has extended over a period of seven months, the assignees, and consequently the Court, still wait patiently for a statement of accounts. The assignees apologetically repudiate any partiality for the bankrupt, though one is said to be his relative, and neither is more than to a trifling amount interested in the estate. Without questioning the good faith of these two gentlemen, we are fully convinced that the general body of creditors have no benefit whatever to anticipate from their exercising powers such as those conferred by the Act of 1861. It is clearly at the bankrupt’s sole discretion whether matters stand still or go forward.”
10 June 1863	SG began his occupation of Higham House in Winchelsea. During his examination in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court on 17 November 1863, SG stated that he had never slept in the house before that date, and that the house belonged to his brother Thomas. Asked: “Have you now, or have you ever had any interest in that property?”, SG answered “No, never”. Asked whether he had been present at the purchase of the house by his brother, he answered: “not at the purchase; I saw the property, and had something to do with the arrangements, but I was not present at the purchase”. (Birmingham Journal, 21 November 1863, p.6).
1 July 1863	At the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, before Commissioner Sanders, the meeting for the last examination and discharge of SG (and of E.B. Thorneycroft), adjourned from 15 April 1863 (see above), was reconvened. The creditor who in complaining of delays in this case at that 15 April meeting had stated: “At the next meeting he should look upon another adjournment as certain”, was proved correct. SG’s ‘balance sheet’ which had been ordered to be filed by 1 June, so it could be properly examined by creditors prior to this meeting, had been filed on the morning of this day and had not been seen by Mr. T.R.T. Hodgson, the legal representative of SG’s assignees, when the proceedings were commenced. And the additional ‘deficiency account’ which Registrar Wilson had requested be lodged prior to this meeting had still not materialized. The proceedings therefore commenced with Hodgson informing Commissioner Sanders of these problems and saying: “therefore there must be an adjournment”. SG’s legal representative, John Smith, then intervened and essentially argued that such an adjournment was not necessary “because many creditors whom he had seen that morning had agreed to take the case out of the Court” (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 2 July 1863, p.6). Smith believed he had the support of a sufficient number of creditors represented at this day’s hearing to have a resolution passed to call a full meeting of creditors to consider this alternative procedural path. But there was opposition. Mr. Kennedy stated: “I appear for one creditor, and whatever may be the result of this strange and unexpected proceeding, I cannot help adverting to the extraordinary course taken by this bankruptcy. It is now twelve months nearly since Mr. Griffiths’s petition was filed, and he was ordered to file his accounts in February or March last. He did not do so, but of course appeared here, and after considerable discussion it was arranged that he should file his ordinary accounts, and two special accounts on the 1st of June in order that his creditors might have a month to examine them before this meeting came on. Now, we have the same game again. A balance-sheet is filed this morning when by law it should have been filed ten days ago, and by courtesy and arrangement with the Court a month ago, and the two special accounts are not filed at all. And now, to evade the consequences, the bankrupts seek to avail themselves of this 110th section. …We came here expecting the accounts would be filed and ready to go on with the examination of the bankrupt. And this is evidently a dodge on the part of the bankrupt, who seeing he has not complied with the order of the Court, wishes to get out of the consequences by a side wind.” (Birmingham Daily Post, 2 July 1863, p.7). After a great deal of legal argument by the various barristers present, Commissioner Sanders determined that until SG had fully complied with the orders made by the Court, he would not allow a resolution of the type proposed by SG’s lawyer (Smith) to be put. This meeting was then adjourned to 21 July 1863: “with the distinct understanding that if the assignees were not satisfied they had had sufficient time, his Honour would grant another adjournment.” (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 2 July 1863, p.6). In the accounts statements that SG had filed on the morning of this day it was disclosed that his expenditure “for the support of himself and family” had been “about £2000” over the year immediately preceding his bankruptcy, and £1500 for the preceding year. (BDP 2 July 1863, p.7). Note that these figures average a little under £150 per month, which is compatible with the figures for the 32 months period preceding SG’s bankruptcy disclosed on 8 July 1863 (see below).
4 July 1863	The Birmingham Journal published (at p6) an editorial commenting on the proceedings at SG’s bankruptcy hearing of 1 July 1863: “The proceedings arising out of the bankruptcy of Mr. Samuel Griffiths are still before the Court, but the word ‘progress’ can scarcely be applied to them. Adjudication in bankruptcy took place last August; we have now arrived at the month of July, and the ‘last examination’ has not yet been gone through; indeed, from what took place on Wednesday morning, there is every probability of that ‘ceremony’ being driven over the ‘long vacation’. We do not say who is to blame for this. Everybody connected with the business speaks of a ‘dodge’, but who is practicing it does not exactly appear. Perhaps, however, it is no wonder the proceedings should be so tardy when we state that the other morning there were no less than a dozen members of the legal profession haggling over the carcase of this estate, tripping up each other in every possible way, with the utter absence of anything like earnestness of purpose, unless (as was hinted) to tire out the creditors. It is almost impossible to conceive anything more calculated to bring the bankruptcy law and the mode of administering it into contempt than the manner in which this bankruptcy has been conducted. …as soon as the case was called on, Mr. John Smith, for the bankrupt, made a statement, which caused some surprise, to the effect that a majority of the creditors ‘had agreed amongst themselves to take the matter out of the Court’; and Mr. Hodgson, as representing the assignees, signified his assent. This was objected to by Mr. Kennedy, who represented Mr. Hughes, of West Bromwich, and this was followed by a long discussion on points of detail… [The] Commissioner intimated his determination to have nothing to do with any proposal such as Mr. Smith had suggested, until the order of the Court of the 16th of April had been complied with …and after a tedious and fruitless discussion it was agreed to take another adjournment until the 21st of July, the …[deficiency account] to be in the meantime filed. But …it seems to be tolerably certain that the matter will go over until November, and by great good luck may be got through this year.”
8 July 1863	SG’s outstanding “deficit account” was filed at the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court. It covered the period from 1 January 1860 to 27 August 1862. And the intention behind requiring SG to furnish it was clearly to allow provide disclosure of how the “deficiency” recorded in SG’s balance-sheet as at 27 August 1862 (£41,520 1s) had emerged over that 32 months period. A summary of this account was published in the Birmingham Journal of 11 July 1863 (p.6). In essence, these figures indicate that the aggregate of SG’s business activities across the whole of that 32 months period had generated “trading losses” of £31,877 pounds, or an average of just under £1000 per month. To this must be added various losses of a capital nature. But SG had drawn out of his businesses “for housekeeping and personal expenses” £4737, or about £150 per month. On top of that he had drawn out £846 to cover his expenses of contesting the Wolverhampton by-election in 1861. Among SG’s outlays reported as business expenses over this 32-months period were £1768 in “travelling and hotel expenses”, and £3,601 in “law charges”.
21 July 1863	At the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, before Commissioner Sanders, the meeting for the last examination and discharge of SG (and of E.B. Thorneycroft) adjourned from 1 July 1863 (see above), was reconvened. As predicted by the Birmingham Journal’s editorial of 4 July, the upshot of the day’s proceedings was a further adjournment to November, with the 17th of that month being agreed to. Nothing appears to have been mentioned about the proposal to take the case out of Court, which had been the subject of so much discussion at the 1 July meeting. This does seem to lend credence to the view that that proposal had been either a delaying tactic, or a ‘dodge’ to shield SG from the commencement of proceedings against him for contempt of Court following his failure to comply with the order of the Court made on 15 April 1863. At this day’s meeting, both Hodgson and Kennedy raised matters indicating that SG had still not fully complied with that Court order. But Commissioner Sanders appears to have taken the view that these were matters which SG should be required to take appropriate steps to remedy, rather than representing anything more serious.
15 December 1863	Samuel Griffiths’ brother Thomas Griffiths was called to give evidence in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, in the case “re. Samuel Griffiths and E. B. Thorneycroft”. He stated that he was the owner of Higham House in Winchelsea, having bought it for £1250 from “Mr. Dawes” (reported as “Mr. Doe” in the Birmingham Daily Gazette), in December 1862, during the time his brother was contesting his bankruptcy.  He stated that Samuel Griffiths “had not the slightest interest in the property, which was purchased with [his] own money, and without any assistance from his brother the bankrupt.” In answer to further questions Thomas said the house was occupied by his brother “who was there on sufferance, and did not pay either rent or taxes. [He] allowed him to live there because he had no home. The furniture in the house, which was worth some £300 or £400 was purchased by [himself, Thomas] as were the horses and carriages”. (Birmingham Daily Post, 16 December 1863).
21 April 1864	The final day of hearings regarding SG’s “last examination” took place in the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court before Commissioner Sanders. After the examination of various witnesses, and of SG himself, had been concluded, the various legal representatives made their closing addresses. Mr. Motteram, for the assignees, commenced his address by stating: “this had been the most extraordinary bankruptcy which he, during an experience of eighteen years, had been engaged in. He believed this was the twenty-eighth meeting, adjournment having followed adjournment, inquiries having been innumerable almost. Everyone who had thought or stated he had a case of complaint, had been permitted by his Honour to make the fullest examination; and although at the time he, as representing the assignees, in respectful terms submitted that those examinations could lead to no good whilst they must increase the expenses to be borne by the assignees, he took this public opportunity of saying that he was delighted that they were allowed, because every report had been thoroughly and completely investigated, and he believed satisfactorily explained away. …There had been charges and counter charges, but whatever there might have been in Mr. Griffiths’s conduct which was not satisfactory the assignees had failed to discover anything for which he could be punished, and at all events they considered that the time which the bankruptcy had been pending was a sufficient punishment for anything he had done. That being so, they did not oppose the bankrupt receiving his order of discharge, but left the matter in his Honour’s hands.” (Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, 23 April 1864, p.7). Mr. Kennedy, who represented William Henry Hughes, probably the most tenacious of SG’s disaffected creditors expressed a different view: “urging that the numerous adjournments which had taken place were the bankrupt’s own fault, and that his client was justified, indeed bound, to investigate [various charges raised re. SG’s conduct].” He contended that SG’s bad-book-keeping “demanded the suspension of the bankrupt, who he also urged ought to have stopped long before he did”. The solicitor for one other creditor submitted that SG had been guilty of “rash and hazardous speculation”, but did not speak specifically against SG being granted a discharge (loc. cit.). Commissioner Sanders concluded the six-hour hearing saying it was necessary that he should reserve his judgment “in order to look into certain points in the case”. But he added that “He had great sympathy for Mr. Griffiths under these repeated delays, and regretted that it was necessary”. (Birmingham Journal, 23 April 1864, p.7).
27 May 1864	In the Birmingham Bankruptcy Court, Commissioner Sanders gave his decision regarding SG’s application for discharge from his bankruptcy triggered by the petitions of 27 August 1862 and 23 October 1862. This decision was that SG “is entitled to an immediate discharge, and must be discharged accordingly.”
October 1865	SG became a freeman of Winchelsea, Sussex, and immediately afterwards was appointed by the Mayor a “jurat’ (or Magistrate) of the town.
27 October 1865	SG attended the funeral of Lord Palmerston at Westminster Abbey, as one of two “Barons of Winchelsea” accompanying the Mayor of Winchelsea. As Perks pointed out in his “Notes for an Autobiography”: “Even today the Corporation of Winchelsea ranks next to the Corporation of London in precedence” (p41). This meant that the Winchelsea representatives “were the first of the deputations from provincial corporations to enter the Abbey” (London Standard, 28 October 1865, p.5).
25 January 1866	SG’s second wife Rebecca died. (reported in “The Gentleman’s Magazine” of March 1866, p.449).
2 February 1866	The funeral of Rebecca took place in Winchelsea, Sussex, and was reported in “The Rye Telegram” of the following day. This report was reproduced in the “Wolverhampton Chronicle” of 14 February (p.4) under the heading “Funeral of Mrs. Samuel Griffiths, Late of Wolverhampton”. It began “The funeral of this much-respected lady, the wife of Samuel Griffiths, Esq. one of the jurats of this ancient town, (and who is so justly and so highly popular with its inhabitants, for to know him is to respect him) took place on Friday. … the funeral cortege left Higham House (the residence of Mr. Griffiths) and proceeded to the churchyard of St Thomas-the-Apostle … where immediately under the tree where the sainted Wesley preached his last open-air sermon, the remains of the deceased were deposited…” The report includes a list of “the chief mourners”, the first six being Samuel Griffiths and his three surviving sons, and the Rev George Thomas Perks and his eldest son Robert. (R.W. Perks was at this stage aged 16). G. T. Perks (1819-1877) was the eldest of Rebecca’s three brothers.
2 April 1866	SG was elected Mayor of Winchelsea. (The Birmingham Daily Post of 11 April 1866, p.3, carried an abridged version of the report of this election published in the “Rye Telegram” of 7 April). On becoming Mayor of Winchelsea, SG also became Speaker of the Cinque Ports, it being part-way through the year of Winchelsea’s turn in the prescribed annual rotation for the holding of that post.
30 May 1866	As Speaker of the Cinque Ports, SG convened (at the Guildhall in New Romney) a special assembly of the “Court of Brotherhood and Guestling” of the Cinque Ports “and Ancient Towns”. The principal formal business of the gathering was to elect a person to the office of president of the Court of Shepway whose role it was to administer the oath to the new Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports “at his forthcoming installation”. (Dover Express, 1 June 1866, p.2; and Sussex Advertiser, 5 June 1866, p.3). This honour was conferred unanimously on “the Speaker for the year”, i.e. SG. It appears, however, that a delay in the holding of the installation ceremony for the new Warden meant that SG’s term in the Speaker role ended before he was able to exercise this particular honour. The Birmingham Daily Post of 22 June 1866 (p.2) published a quite lengthy report of the day’s proceedings in New Romney, sourced as “Abridged from the South Eastern Advertiser”, under the headline “Mr. Samuel Griffiths at New Romney”. The second paragraph of this report read: “The Speaker (S. Griffiths, Esq., of Higham House, Winchelsea) performed his duties in a most satisfactory manner. The honourable gentleman appeared in a magnificent robe, and wearing a wig corresponding to that of the Speaker of the House of Commons. His noble appearance and powerful voice, together with his gentlemanly bearing, rendered him in every respect a fit and proper person to perform the duty of Speaker”. The meeting concluded with the Mayor of Dover proposing a vote of thanks to SG “for the able manner in which he had held the presidency during the assembly … they could not possibly have had a more able and talented Speaker”.
23 January 1867	SG’s daughter by his first marriage, Ann Maria (born 1838), was admitted to the County Lunatic Asylum in Stafford, and recorded as “Female Pauper”, not as a Private patient. She was transferred to the Burntwood Asylum on 2 April 1868, still recorded as “Pauper”. She remained there until her death in 1903, but was a Private patient from 19 January 1900.
4 May 1867	The Sussex Advertiser of this date (at p3.) reported that on Easter Monday (in keeping with “ancient custom”) the election for the Mayor of Winchelsea had taken place: “On this occasion the choice of the freemen again fell upon Samuel Griffiths, Esq. of Higham House, who acknowledged the repeated honour done him in grateful terms.”
10 September 1867	Sir Francis Lycett, High Sheriff of London, visited Winchelsea to lay the foundation stone of the new Wesleyan Chapel. Samuel Griffiths, as Mayor of Winchelsea gave a speech welcoming Lycett to the town and entertained him at Higham House prior to the ceremony. The Rev George Thomas Perks (brother of SG’s late wife, Rebecca) attended in his role as Lycett’s chaplain, and spoke at the ceremony. (Sussex Advertiser, 14 September 1867, p.3).
29 January 1868	SG was adjudged bankrupt under a petition he had filed for his own bankruptcy in the London Bankruptcy Court. The notice of this published in the London Gazette of 11 February 1868 (p.697) suggests he had been operating in partnership with his eldest surviving son Frederick Ridgway Griffiths during the lead-up to this insolvency. This notice cites him as: “Samuel Griffiths, formerly of Whitmore Reans Hall, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire; and Higham House, Winchelsea, Sussex; next of Higham House aforesaid only; and next and now of No. 2 Chester Street, Belgrave Square, Middlesex, having offices at No. 17 Palmerston Buildings, Old Broad-street in the city of London, formerly carrying on business with Ridgway Griffiths, and Thornton as Merchants, under the style or firm of Ridgway, Griffiths, Thornton and Company, afterwards carrying on business with Ridgway Griffiths only, under the style of Ridgway Griffiths, and Company, as Merchants.”  I have not been able to discover the identity (or Christian name) of the Mr. Thornton referred to in this notice. As Frederick Ridgway Griffiths did not reach the age of 21 until late 1868/ January 1869, it seems likely that any liabilities that “he” had incurred through these partnership arrangements with his father would have fallen on SG’s shoulders, were he to be unable to pay them.
25 March 1868	A meeting was held in the Court of Bankruptcy, London, for the last examination and discharge of Samuel Griffiths. According to the Birmingham Daily Post’s reporter: “The bankrupt, when called into Court, presented himself in the witness box in a state which excited the commiseration of the Court” SG stated that above) of large ironworks – £825 pounds a year – during the last five years, owing to badness of trade (loc. cit.)
28 May 1868	SG’s last examination and discharge meeting, adjourned from 25 March 1868, was called on in the London Bankruptcy Court. According to the BDP report, the solicitor for the Creditors’ assignees “said that the bankrupt was suffering from illness, and having filed no accounts, there must be an adjournment, and, he would suggest, at the bankrupt’s expense, as at present only £32 had been realized, although the bankrupt held the official position of Mayor of Winchelsea. (A laugh)”. This time, however, there was “a surgeon’s certificate of the bankrupt’s illness” produced, and the Registrar adjourned the hearing once again. (Birmingham Daily Post, 30 May 1868).
6 November 1868	SG’s adjourned last examination and discharge meeting was held before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd in the London Bankruptcy Court. He had filed a statement of his accounts, which the Birmingham Daily Gazette described as “of a voluminous character”. The total for his liabilities was £26,053. The total of his assets was given as £27,555, but this included £3305 owed to him by “bad Debtors”. All of his property assets (valued at £23,950) were stated to be in the hands of his secured creditors. SG stated that his expenditure had been £1000 per annum. “Mr. Commissioner Holroyd was of the opinion that the statement of accounts filed by the bankrupt was insufficient, and ordered him to file a cash account … the sitting was then adjourned to 7th January” (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 9 November 1868, p.5; and London City Press, 14 November 1868, p.6).
7 January 1869	SG’s adjourned last examination and discharge meeting was held in the London Bankruptcy Court. The solicitor representing the creditors’ assignees stated that the additional accounts and vouchers filed by Griffiths had been examined and found to be satisfactory. He said: “certain answers to requisitions which the bankrupt had been ordered to give, although not quite in all respects what had been considered quite necessary …[Nevertheless] the assignees felt that the bankrupt had done the best he could under the circumstances and did not therefore oppose his discharge”. The barrister representing Lloyds Bank sought to argue that certain steps Griffiths had taken during this insolvency process had vexatiously imposed additional costs on the Bank. But Commissioner Holroyd found that not to be established, and granted Griffiths an order of discharge. (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 8 January 1869, p3; and Coventry Standard, 15 January 1869, p.3).
18 January 1869	SG’s eldest surviving son, Frederick Ridgway Griffiths, was married at St. Peter’s Church, West Hackney, to Annie Westlake, daughter of John Westlake, “brewer”. The marriage record has Frederick’s age given as ‘21’, his occupation as “Commercial Traveller”, and his address as Derby Road. SG’s occupation is given as “metal broker”, and neither he nor Frederick have the ‘s’ at the end of their surname recorded. Neither SG nor any of Frederick’s siblings were recorded as witnesses. And neither of the two witnesses appear to have been close relatives of the bride. Annie had been recorded in the 1861 census, living in her widower father’s household in Devon, and with her occupation given as “servant”. Her father’s occupation is reported as “labourer”. It seems unlikely that Frederick had “married into money”.
26 February 1869	At the meeting of the Wolverhampton Board of Guardians: “a correspondence between the Clerk and Mr. Samuel Griffiths, of Broad-street London, relative to the maintenance of his daughter in the County Lunatic Asylum, was read. Mr. Griffiths said it was wholly out of his power to reimburse the Union; but the Clerk was directed to see if he could not make some arrangement with Mr. Griffiths”. (Staffordshire Advertiser, 27 February 1869, p5). This relates to SG’s daughter by his first marriage, Ann Maria, who is recorded as residing in the Burntwood Lunatic Asylum in each of the censuses from 1871 to 1901 inclusive. (See entry for 23 January 1867 above). She had been recorded in SG’s household in Wolverhampton on census night 1861.
27 April 1869	At the Police Court in Wolverhampton, an application was granted for a summons made by the Clerk (Mr. Pritchard) of the Wolverhampton Board of Guardians against SG: “to contribute towards the support of his daughter in the Lunatic Asylum”. His daughter was referred to as “a pauper inmate of Burntwood Lunatic Asylum”, and Pritchard “said he should be prepared to show, when the case came on what was Mr. Griffiths’ position, and that his bankruptcy did not relieve him of his liability”. (Birmingham Daily Gazette, 28 April 1869, p.4; and Staffordshire Advertiser 1 May 1869, p.7).
12 May 1869	The Birmingham Daily Gazette (p.7) reported that SG had consented to an order being made against him, regarding his contributing towards the support of his daughter in the Lunatic Asylum, and that the Clerk of the Wolverhampton Board of Guardians had stated it to represent a satisfactory arrangement.
25 September 1869	The report in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette of the weekly meeting of the Wolverhampton Board of Guardians (p.8) suggests that SG had defaulted on his obligations under the Court Order made in May: “…it was decided to take legal proceedings against Mr. Samuel Griffiths unless he paid the amount due from him towards the support of his daughter in the County Lunatic Asylum.”
9 October 1869	The report in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette of the weekly meeting of the Wolverhampton Board of Guardians (p.8) includes: “The Clerk reported that he had received a cheque from Mr. Samuel Griffiths to pay for the arrears due from him to the Board for the maintenance of his daughter in the County Lunatic Asylum.”
3 December 1869	The Wolverhampton Board of Guardians was told at its meeting by the Clerk that he had issued “a summons against Mr. Samuel Griffiths for the amount of the bill he had given for the amount due … for the support of his daughter in the lunatic asylum, which bill Mr. Griffiths had dishonoured”. (Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, 4 December 1869, p.8). This appears to be the last newspaper report concerning SG’s contributions towards the support of Ann Maria.
28 June 1870	Higham House was auctioned at the Mart, Tokenhouse Yard, London. The furniture and effects at the house were sold by private treaty. (Reported in the “Hastings and St Leonards Observer”, 23 July 1870). A notice advertising the auction of Higham House had described it as “a substantial and commodious country Mansion … about a mile from and in sight of the sea… It contains 8 bedrooms, 2 dressing rooms, 3 large reception rooms, with ample domestic offices, cellarage, stabling, coachhouse and other out-buildings, ornamental pleasure grounds, lawn, walled kitchen gardens and an enclosure of excellent meadow land
2 April 1871	In the 1871 census, SG gave his occupation as “Chief Baron of the Cinque Ports”. He was at 34 Albion Road, Hackney (a Boarding House kept by Elizabeth Mills). Although Higham House had been sold, it seems likely that Winchelsea continued to be SG’s principal place of residence at this stage. His youngest son Herbert William (aged 13), and youngest daughter Gertrude (11) were recorded as being at St Thomas street, Winchelsea, on census night, with their elder sister Catharine Marian (16) and one female servant. Catharine did not describe herself as head of the household, but as “Daughter of Sam (sic) Griffiths”, which would seem to suggest that SG was dividing his time between London and here. SG’s second-youngest daughter, Jessie Perks Griffiths (14), was living in London where she was training to be a nurse (or “Deaconess”) at the “Evangelical Protestant Deaconesses’ Institute and Training Hospital”, Tottenham Green, (renamed the Prince of Wales General Hospital in 1907).
11 January 1872	SG’s second eldest surviving son, Samuel James Murray Griffiths, known throughout his adult life as “Murray Griffith”, became a clerk to the well-established member of the London Stock Exchange, Henry Doughty Browne. This was the pathway to Murray becoming a member of the London Stock Exchange himself five years later, and no doubt involved the payment of a ‘premium’ by SG to Doughty-Browne for providing this ‘apprenticeship’. In “The Stock Exchange Christmas Annual” of 1925-26, Murray Griffith wrote: “I believe father paid a premium for me to learn the business”. This was in the passage describing Murray’s earlier, and abortive, clerkship at the Stock Exchange, this passage ending: “I was cast out into the financial desert, and bang went all my hopes of a partnership, and bang went father’s premium”. Describing his “next venture in the struggle for financial greatness”, in Doughty Browne’s office, Murray says that he: “was engaged under the erroneous supposition that I knew all about Jobbers’ ledgers and Jobbers’ work”, and he makes no mention of SG paying a premium. But it is hard to imagine Doughty Browne giving the young man this second chance, without SG having made some sort of arrangement to bring him on-side.
13 December 1877	SG married for a third time, at the parish church of St Swithins in the City of London. His third wife was Emma Martin, daughter of John Martin (c.1803 – 1880). The two witnesses were SG’s youngest daughter, Gertrude, and SG’s son-in-law Dr. Alfred Pownall Woodforde (who had married SG’s daughter Laura in October 1874).
24 May 1881	SG died suddenly at Dalston Junction Railway station on the North London Railway. He had booked first class to Broad Street at about 11.15 a.m. He then “hastened to catch a train … but missed it and had to re-ascend the stairs to go to the other platform”. SG fell on the staircase. A porter who went to his assistance sent for a doctor. The doctor, on arriving and examining him, found him to be dead. (“Hackney and Kingsland Gazette”, 25 May 1881, p.3.)
26 May 1881	An inquest was held at the “Marquis of Lansdowne”, Stoke Newington road. SG’s widow gave his occupation as Iron Merchant, and stated that “he had been ailing for about a week and had complained of shortness of breath, in consequence of which he had consulted his son-in-law Dr Woodforde … but it was not considered he was seriously ill”. After hearing the various witnesses, the jury returned a verdict that his death was the result of heart disease. (Reported in the “Hackney and Kingsland Gazette”, 27 May 1881, p.3.)
15 June 1881	Letters of Administration of SG’s personal estate were granted to his son “Murray Griffiths (sic) of Hamlet Court, Southend.” (SG’s widow Emma had renounced the Letters of Administration). The estate was sworn at £395. Murray usually spelt his surname as “Griffith” (without the ‘s’), but in this context the fuller version probably helped with the formalities.