Chapter 3: A Chapter of Beginnings
A scan of the original unannotated document can be accessed from the HathiTrust Digital Library collection at
The Life-Story of Sir Robert W. Perks, Baronet, by Denis Crane.
[start of page 51 in original pagination]
Chapter III: A Chapter of Beginnings
Cambridge and the Civil Service having both been set aside as unsuitable or impracticable, the problem of the future once more obtruded itself. A reasonable inquiry, particularly from Methodist readers, will be, Was the Christian ministry never entertained as a desirable solution? Robert’s father was a minister, and most ministers cherish the hope that one at least of their sons may follow their own profession. Moreover, the very atmosphere of the manse, with its unworldly ideals and altruistic sympathies, commonly suggests the ministry as the most covetable of callings. In young Perks’s case, these influences must have been strengthened by his long association at Kingswood with other youths who all, without exception, came from Methodist
[start of page 52 in original pagination]
Preachers’ homes. How potent this combination of forces has proved in many instances is seen in the fact that of two thousand six hundred and twenty-three boys who attended Kingswood and Woodhouse Grove (the latter also formerly a denominational school for ministers’ sons), six hundred and seven, or more than twenty per cent., have since entered the service of some branch of the Christian Church, at home or abroad.
But high as has ever been Sir Robert’s respect for the vocation which his father so conspicuously adorned, it does not appear that at any time he himself felt any call in that direction. And his characteristic good sense told him that without a divine call the position was nothing short of bondage. On the other hand, his father, with his particular ideas of parental training, never suggested it. He, too, felt that if the call came it must come from above. On one occasion, Sir Robert says, his father partially bared his heart on the subject. One of Mr. Perks’s colleagues in the ministry had just called, and Robert and his father were left talking alone in the study.
‘Bob,’ said the latter, turning suddenly to his son, ‘I think that the devil never tempts
[start of page 53 in original pagination]
a Methodist preacher more severely than when he tries to make him think that his son is called to the work of the ministry.’ Then, after a pause, he added: ‘It is just what the preacher wants to think. It is the dearest wish of his heart. The devil comes when he does not know what to do with his boy, and offers him an easy entrance into a profession for life.’ That, however, was as far as the matter ever went.
After leaving King’s College, then, in 1871[1], the young man found himself once more at a loose end. A splendid education, a constitution like iron, and an unbounded belief in his own future, all these he possessed: but he still lacked the one thing which could turn them to account — a definite life-purpose. It was at this juncture and in circumstances which seem almost fortuitous,[2] that a suggestion was made which at length supplied his need and turned his pent-up energies in the right direction.
Residing in the Highbury Circuit at this time was Sir Francis Lycett, known to the world at large as leading partner in a famous glove firm, but better known among Methodists as one of the founders of the Wesleyan
[start of page 54 in original pagination]
Metropolitan Chapel Building Fund[3]. Between this gentleman and the Rev. G. T. Perks, who for a time was superintendent of the circuit, there was naturally some intimacy. When Sir Francis was Sheriff of London, in 1867, Mr. Perks acted as his chaplain.[4] It was out of this friendship that the aforesaid suggestion was made, and it came about on this wise.
The young man was walking one morning in Highbury Park, when he was accosted by his father’s friend, who, after some general inquiries, asked whether he had yet decided what he was going to do. Receiving a negative reply he said: ‘Well, I think you would make a lawyer. I am going to the City tomorrow morning to see my solicitors, and if you like to come with me I will see if they have an opening for you, if you would care to be articled to them.’ Having consulted his father, the next day he accompanied Sir Francis to the office of Messrs. De Jersey & Micklem, a highly respectable, old-fashioned City firm practising in Gresham Street.
The senior partner of this house, Mr. Henry de Jersey, was the son of a French Methodist minister. He was a Low Churchman of some-what narrow views. Though his legal know-
[start of page 55 in original pagination]
ledge was not profound, his knowledge of men, and especially City Corporation people, was unrivalled. He never missed a City function, big or little, and his affection for the Guildhall was ‘passing the love of women.’ He lived to a great age, and left a small fortune.[5] The second partner, Mr. Thomas Micklem, was a Baptist. He was a very able lawyer, and a farmer to boot, owning a considerable estate in Hertfordshire.[6]
No difficulty was experienced in finding Robert a position with the firm, and he commenced his duties and studies forthwith. His articles cost three hundred pounds. Speaking some years ago, at a meeting of lawyers, about his experiences in this law office, he said: ‘I well remember standing in the dusty little outer office, waiting to be ushered into Mr. Secondary de Jersey’s august presence. On the wall I saw an ordinary wooden kitchen clock, bearing this ominous inscription: “This clock was presented to the firm of De Jersey & Micklem in acknowledgement of their services in conducting successfully the case of Brown v. Jones, carrying this case from the Queen’s Bench to the Court of Appeal and thence to the House of Lords, where judgement
[start of page 56 in original pagination]
was given for the plaintiff.” I thought: Is that all?’
It was now that his training in essay-writing under Dr. Brewer stood him in good stead; for during the next four years he received no remuneration, and had perforce to support himself by journalism. The famous Preacher of the Rolls had done his work well. The young law-student was possessed of a crisp, epigrammatic style, which he was now able to turn to good account in articles and reviews contributed to various newspapers. Two notable articles written for the London Quarterly Review, one on the French military system, and the other on ‘Modern Municipalities,’ attracted considerable attention. During each of these strenuous years, he calculates, he earned in this way fully two hundred pounds.[7]
I have said that the years were strenuous. That they must have been so the reader can judge for himself. One of Sir Robert’s old schoolfellows, who was in touch with him in these days, says it was no uncommon thing to find his friend reading law at five in the morning, and this often after he had been working late on the previous night. As a matter of fact, Sir Robert made it an inflexible rule
[start of page 57 in original pagination]
never to be in bed of a morning after five. To enforce this rule when heavy duties and late hours pleaded hard for its suspension, he invented an ingenious device. This consisted of a long glass tube filled with water, nicely balanced over his head and attached by a string to an alarum. At the desired hour the bell rang and awakened the sleeper; if within a few seconds he did not leap from his bed and avert the calamity, the descending weight of the clock destroyed the balance of the tube, and down poured the water on his guilty head.
Another faculty besides that of immense industry was now soon to be brought into play. Although he had received no special training in this direction, he developed a singular gift of draughtsmanship, by which in a short time he was able to execute a sketch or a plan with considerable precision. The way in which this talent came into use not only throws an interesting light upon Sir Rober’s character, but also might well form a contribution to the romance of modern railway enterprise. He had noticed that the successful men in law, in medicine, and in literature, were the men who specialized. Railway
[start of page 58 in original pagination]
construction had always been a favourite study: now came his chance for railway law.
The underground railways of London were then being constructed, so with no little zest he began to acquaint himself with their history. The District Railway in those days, coming from the West, stopped at Mansion House. The Metropolitan line, coming from Paddington, stopped at Moorgate Street. The latter, which was the older and richer company, was pushing its way forward to Bishopsgate Street, but the less fortunate District line was short of money and stood still.
An Act of Parliament, however, had been obtained for a new line, called ‘Newman’s Line,’ coupling up the two railways by running up Queen Victoria Street, and thence via Cornhill to Aldgate.[8] To the study of this and other Acts, Sir Robert gave up all his leisure. He made himself master of all the interests involved, and waded patiently through all the Acts of Parliament, as well as the contracts made with the public bodies whose rights, real or imaginary, were protected. The fascination of the subject grew upon him. He drew sketches of what appeared to him to be improvements in the route, and devoted whole
[start of page 59 in original pagination]
Saturday afternoons to surveying the affected properties.
The strange thing about all this is, that he had not the slightest motive for all his labour, except that the subject interested him. The firm to which he was articled had no railway business, neither did they practise in the Parliamentary Committees. But as events proved, his work was not thrown away. Within four years from the expiration of his articles he was the legal adviser of the Metropolitan Railway. This position was worth from three to four thousand a year, and Sir Robert retained it for fifteen years, resigning it when he entered Parliament, in 1892.[9] Anticipating somewhat the course of events, I may here interpolate a few particulars of some of the important duties in this capacity which devolved upon him.
The Metropolitan system at that time ran no further north than Brondesbury,[10] and one of the first tasks he had to perform was to take charge in Parliament of all the struggles to extend the line first to Harrow, then to Pinner and Rickmansworth, and ultimately to Aylesbury. He negotiated the purchase of the old Aylesbury and Buckingham Railway
[start of page 60 in original pagination]
and the Metropolitan and St. John’s Wood line. The policy of the Board was to convert what was purely a London line into a suburban railway — a policy which secured to the Metropolitan a long lease of prosperity, only to be disturbed, as it so rudely was, by the advent of electricity as a motive power for railway purposes.
During Sir Robert’s legal connexion with the line, the Inner Circle — the name recalls many entertaining stories, which, however, I must not stop to relate — was completed,[11] and extensions of the Metropolitan Railway were projected and constructed to Whitechapel, and, under the London Hospital, to East London and New Cross. Two important extensions of the line which he fought successfully through Parliament were never made. One was a short railway from Brondesbury to Hendon,[12] and the other, one from Aylesbury to Oxford.[13]
His intimate knowledge of the London railways, and especially of the underground lines, raised him, in 1901, on the death of Mr. J. S. Forbes[14], to the Chairmanship of the Metropolitan District Railway. The company was then about to embark upon the very
[start of page 61 in original pagination]
doubtful but necessary policy of converting its system from steam to electric traction, and Sir Robert presided over the destinies of the line during the three critical years which this enormous operation occupied. His duties brought him into close contact with leading English and American financiers, who provided the necessary funds for the work. When the transformation was effected he retired in favour of the Chairman who was entrusted with the task of operating the line when ready for traffic.[15]
The gigantic nature of these and the allied electrification schemes will be understood when it is stated that capital amounting to sixteen million pounds sterling was involved. In addition to the financial negotiations, however, Sir Robert had to submit to Parliament the numerous proposals of the different rail- and tramways, and to guide the promoters of these extensive systems in their various agreements with the local authorities and other parties affected. Whoever has benefited by the construction of these important London lines, certainly the travelling public have no reason to complain, albeit some inevitable grievances, such as overcrowding, have yet to be redressed.
[start of page 62 in original pagination]
But to resume the thread of my story. Sir Robert soon turned his knowledge of London to good account in other directions than railway enterprise. The commercial instinct, which, however it may be denounced by those who lack it, is merely power to see opportunities, combined with courage and ability to use them, was in him early developed and sagaciously applied. Five-and-thirty years ago some of the large estates which are now covered with thriving metropolitan suburbs were only just beginning to be laid out for building purposes. Sir Robert, like many other wide-awake men, interested himself to advantage in some of the more promising schemes. He also made some judicious deals in house property, occasionally reselling his purchases at a profit without having so much as seen the deeds. But all through the years his penetration has saved him from becoming identified with unsound or questionable undertakings. In a letter some years ago to the Glasgow Herald on the Limited Liability Acts, he made incidental reference to this fact.
‘During the last twenty years,’ he wrote, ‘I have acted professionally for public companies, many of them manufacturing and
[start of page 63 in original pagination]
trading concerns, with an aggregate paid-up capital of more than a hundred and fifty million pounds. In only one case has any of these companies gone into liquidation, and that was one with a capital of less than ten thousand pounds. The companies which have in my experience been managed with the greatest care, enterprise, personal attention and success, have been the “private” rather than the “public” companies. One of the main elements of success has, however, been the presence upon the directorate, and in the management, of men holding a substantial interest in the ordinary or unprotected stocks.’[16]
On leaving De Jersey & Micklem’s, in 1876, Sir Robert at once entered into business for himself, in partnership with his father’s friend, Mr. Henry Hartley Fowler (now Lord Wolverhampton), and Mr. Charles Corser.[17] The latter retired in 1879, but the association with the former extended, on terms of the closest intimacy, over a period of five-and-twenty years. The locality chosen for the new business was Leadenhall Street, the reason being that Sir Robert had made a speciality of mercantile and Admiralty law. Moreover, his father had invested some money in steamships, upon
[start of page 64 in original pagination]
the advice of a Methodist shipowner; and this gentleman had buoyed up his guileless friend with the hope that directly his son opened his office the legal business of at least one shipping firm would pour through its portals. The hope was never realized, however, for the worthy man, who bore a well-known Methodist name, never gave Sir Robert six-pennyworth of work to the day of his death.[18] One wonders whether this and other like experiences can have been in Sir Robert’s mind when he framed his Methodist Brotherhood proposals, referred to on a later page.
In commencing business for himself he made some rather curious rules, which had not a little to do with his financial success. He determined never to handle Criminal business. County Court and Divorce Court work was also declined. He shut the door to building societies, and he discouraged lady clients. He once told a friend that in the whole course of his experience he had never done legal work for more than three ladies. This singular prejudice, so far as legal matters were concerned, against the gentler sex, was based chiefly upon a lively recollection, in no way dimmed even at the present day, of a
[start of page 65 in original pagination]
doctor’s widow who used to visit the firm to whom he was articled. This lady, who might for her persistency have served as the prototype of Miss Flite, in Bleak House, invariably pulled out her knitting, was always accompanied by an extremely talkative daughter, and without exception grumbled immoderately at her bills.
Business at first did not come pouring in. Indeed, for several months the prospect was by no means promising. A story is told on good authority of a little incident which took place at this juncture, while he was still living with his parents, and which illustrates his indomitable faith in the future. The dearth of business was such that, out of feeling for his father, who plied him nightly with questions as to what the day had brought forth, he somewhat dreaded the homegoing. One day Mr. Perks saw it announced that his son had promised fifty pounds to some church fund, and anxiously inquired where the money was to come from. ‘Oh,’ came the reply, with apparent indifference, ‘it will be all right; it will come from somewhere.’ Next day, runs the story, he had a client who paid him a hundred pounds.
It was during a short holiday at Llandudno,
[start of page 66 in original pagination]
in the summer of 1877,[19] that he met with his first piece of good fortune, and this he owed more to his own push and enterprise than to any merely fortuitous combination of circumstances. Wandering round the district, he observed the Conway tubular and suspension bridges. Curiosity led him to read up the engineering and commercial history of these two well-known structures, one of which belonged to the Crown and the other to the North-Western Railway. The former, administered by the Treasury, was crushed by a heavy debt, and it levied usurious tolls, which killed trade and handicapped traffic.
Sir Robert was sitting one afternoon in the coffee-room at the hotel where he was staying, when up drove a four-in-hand. Its four occupants had just paid monstrous tolls, and were angry and excited. They cursed every one connected with the bridge. Sir Robert listened at the next table, and in a quiet interval interposed.
‘Gentlemen,’ said he, ‘I think if you tolerate such a state of things you richly deserve all you get.’
The travellers stared in amazement. ‘What is to be done?’ they asked.
[start of page 67 in original pagination]
‘If you will allow me, I will tell you.’ And Sir Robert proceeded to unfold a plan for taking the bridge out of the hands of the Crown, cancelling the huge debt, vesting the property in local commissioners, reducing the tolls and increasing the revenue.
The gentlemen proved to be the late Lord Penrhyn, then Mr. Douglas-Pennant, Sir Richard Bulkeley, Lord-Lieutenant of the county, Mr. Buckley Williams, M.P. for Anglesea, and a Mr. Wood, a rich dye-maker. So struck were they with Sir Robert’s suggestion, that they engaged him on the spot to bring into Parliament the necessary Bill, which he successfully carried the following session, after striking a good bargain with the late Lord Derby, then Financial Secretary to the Treasury.[20] The only commercial point which the Treasury of those days seemed not to grasp was, that by reducing tolls you increase revenue.
Lord Penrhyn afterwards recommended Sir Robert to the Marquess of Bristol, who was connected with some railway projects in the Eastern Counties. For many months Lord Bristol, his brother. Lord Francis Hervey, and Sir Robert, used to make periodical visits
[start of page 68 in original pagination]
to the Rutland Arms, Newmarket. The last-named has on more than one occasion astonished his friends by saying that in his earlier days he was a frequent visitor to the famous racing town.[21] Lord Penrhyn’s success over the Conway Bridge helped him to win the county seat for his party at a subsequent election.[22] He never forgot Sir Robert’s services, and it was through his friendship indirectly that the latter ultimately made the acquaintance of one whose business connexions contributed perhaps more liberally than any other to Sir Robert’s fortunes. I refer to the late Sir Edward William Watkin, of whom more will have to be said in the following chapter.
It was when business began at length to flow into the Leadenhall Street office, as just narrated, that a heavy blow fell upon Sir Robert’s Highbury home. Of his six sisters, two had died very young, one at Perth and the other at City Road.[23] His eldest sister, a girl of great beauty and remarkable culture, passed away at the age of three-and-twenty.[24] Death was now to claim the head of the house.
On Saturday, May 26, 1877, the Rev. G. T. Perks travelled to Rotherham to preach on the following day the annual missionary sermons.
[start of page 69 in original pagination]
By one of those singular coincidences to which our forefathers would have given a distinctly religious interpretation, he preached on the Sunday evening upon the solemn subject of death, and was addressing some long-remembered words of comfort to any among his auditors who might have been bereaved, when he was himself struck down with fatal illness. Sir Robert was sent for, and shortly after his arrival the honoured servant of God, with a smile on his lips, and clasped in his son’s arms, passed peacefully away, saying : ‘Bob, my boy, tell mother it is all right.’ This triumphant scene, crowning a life of exemplary devotion and integrity, made an impression upon Sir Robert which has never left him, and which has perhaps more profoundly influenced his whole career than any other personal force with which he has come in contact.
In the succeeding year the little circle was yet further decreased by the death of a fourth sister; and with Sir Robert’s marriage in the following spring the Highbury home was finally broken up.[25] Of the two surviving sisters one died in middle life, leaving six sons and three daughters; the other now lives at Beckenham.[26] Sir Robert’s only
[start of page 70 in original pagination]
brother, Mr. George D. Perks, followed him into the legal profession, and when Sir Robert retired from practice some years ago succeeded to the business which he and Lord Wolverhampton had built up.
So eventful a step as Sir Robert’s marriage must not be passed over without a further word. Among his fellow students at Mr. Jefferson’s school at Clapham was William Mewbum, son of a well-known and generous Methodist layman, Mr. William Mewbum of Wykham Park, Banbury.[27] It was on a visit to the home of his school friend that Sir Robert first met his wife, Mr. Mewbum’s youngest daughter, Edith.[28] The wedding took place on the bridegroom’s birthday, in April, 1878. The President of the Wesleyan Conference, the late Dr. W. B. Pope, conducted the ceremony, assisted by two Ex-Presidents, both close friends of the bridegroom’s family, the Rev. Dr. Jobson and the Rev. Dr. Morley Punshon. Mr. (afterwards Sir) John Lawson Walton, a Wesleyan minister’s son, acted as best man,[29] making a speech that is still remembered; while the bride’s health was proposed by Sir Robert’s partner, the present Lord Wolverhampton.
End Notes to Chapter Three
[1] The three academic years which Perks attended King’s College were 1866-67, 1867-68, and 1868-69 (see note 18 to Chapter Two).
[2] It is at this point that Crane introduces a theme which recurs in this chapter and also in later chapters. At key “junctures” in the adult life of his subject, Crane tells us something “fortuitous” happened, this being followed by his hero taking very prompt and decisive action, that in turn leading to beneficial longer-term consequences.
[3] Francis Lycett (1803-1880) became a partner in the glove-making firm “Dent and Allcroft” in 1845. Having acquired a large fortune, he retired from the business in mid-1865. He was knighted in 1867 and was one of the highest-profile laymen in the Wesleyan Methodist Church during the 1860s and 1870s. See the entry for him in the Dictionary of Methodism in Britain and Ireland (dmbi.online/index.php?do=app.entry&id=1771).
[4] Francis Lycett was elected one of the two Sheriffs for London and Middlesex for the 1866-67 year. It was reported in The Times, 6 August 1866, p. 8, that he had appointed the Rev. G.T. Perks as his chaplain. This was followed by the comment: “This is the first time since the days of Wesley that a Wesleyan minister has been called upon to officiate in this capacity.”
[5] Henry de Jersey (1804-1884) had been appointed by Francis Lycett his “under-Sheriff” for the 1866-67 year. De Jersey held important posts in the City of London, being Chairman of the Commission of Sewers from 1862 to 1871 and “Secondary” of the City from 1871 to 1884.
[6] Between April 1866 and December 1869 there was a third partner in the practice, and the firm was titled De Jersey, Micklem and Thornburn. William Thornburn (1825-1897) had married, in March 1866, Mary Elizabeth Lycett, the eldest daughter of one of Francis Lycett’s uncles — John Lycett M.D. of Scarborough. Mary Elizabeth appears to have been one of Francis Lycett’s more favoured relatives. She was recorded as being in his household on census night 1861, and she received a generous legacy under his will. William Thornburn’s sister Ann was married to William Perks (1822-1881), a prominent Wesleyan layman in Birmingham who was a second cousin of G.T. Perks. When William Thornburn’s father died in 1869, he withdrew from the De Jersey and Micklem partnership to return to his family’s base in Papcastle, Cumberland.
[7] Regarding Perks’s London Quarterly Review article on the French military system, see note 14 to Chapter Two. His second LQR publication referred to here appears to be the article titled “London: Civic and Social” published in Vol. 39, No. 77, October 1872, pp. 161-184. But as LQR articles were unsigned at this time, that is not clear-cut. Regarding Perks’s earnings from his writing activities during this period, the 1903 British Monthly article gave the same figure as Crane does here: “he was able to earn £200 a year by journalism” (op. cit., p. 79). But in his Notes for an Autobiography, Perks put the figure lower, at “£100 to £150 a year.” (op. cit., p. 50). In his 1906 “My Methodist Life” article, Perks did not give a figure for his earnings, but stated (at p. 97): “in my younger days I was a frequent writer for the London Quarterly Review, the Watchman newspaper and the Methodist Recorder.” An unfriendly biographical sketch of Perks published in a number of provincial newspapers in 1901 contained the sentence: “It is not generally known, I believe, that at one time Mr. Perks wrote for the Press and recalls carrying his articles to the office of the Pall Mall Gazette, in whose illustrious columns they appeared” (see, for example, The Northern Scot, 10 August 1901, p. 6).
[8] Newman’s line (formally titled the Metropolitan Inner Circle Completion Railway) was promoted in the 1874 session of Parliament by George Gunnell Newman (1827-1885). Its Act obtained Royal Assent on 7 August 1874. There was controversy over whether its proposed route for connecting the District Railway with the Metropolitan was the best route. But Newman had succeeded in securing promises of financial support from the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London, and the Metropolitan Board of Works. A predecessor scheme to connect the District with the Metropolitan, titled the East and West Metropolitan Junction and Cannon-street Railway, had been promoted in the 1872 and 1873 sessions of Parliament by Charles Baylis — unsuccessfully in both years.
[9] Perks’s memorandum of evidence to the Royal Commission on London Traffic, which he submitted in March 1904, commenced: “He has been for 25 years closely associated with railway undertakings in the Metropolis. He was from 1879 to 1892 the legal advisor of the Metropolitan Railway Company.” Perks was careful not to say that he had been the company’s solicitor from 1879. During 1879 a serious dispute developed between the board of the Metropolitan Railway and the company’s long-serving solicitor, William Burchell junior (born c.1831). In June 1880, the board of the Metropolitan formally approved the engagement of Perks “in the personal interests of the directors”, but the board minutes suggest he had been working in that capacity since November or December 1879. The dispute with Burchell went into a formal Arbitration process, and Perks was tasked with putting the case against Burchell before the Arbitrator. On 17 August 1881 the Metropolitan board gave Burchell six months notice of the termination of his agreement with the company and on the same day invited Perks to indicate the terms under which he would be happy to take over the job. On 30 August the board agreed terms with the remuneration being £2,500 per year, and Perks formally took over duties as the Metropolitan`s solicitor from 17 February 1882. His base remuneration was increased to £3,500 per year from 1 January 1885, and the board approved various bonuses from time to time — for example a bonus of £4,500 “chargeable to the capital account” approved on 24 September 1884. Crane’s figure for the remuneration is probably a reasonable estimate of the average annual figure for the thirteen years as a whole. Crane’s error in stating that Perks resigned after “fifteen years” may be the result of his being aware that Perks had continued on a “consultancy” basis with the Metropolitan for a period following his election to Parliament.
[10] The reference to Brondesbury here is difficult to interpret. Prior to 24 November 1879, Metropolitan services ran no further north than West Hampstead. From 24 November 1879, services were extended to Willesden Green, with an intermediate station at “Kilburn & Brondesbury.” (See p. 79 and p. 357 of Alan A. Jackson, London’s Metropolitan Railway, David and Charles 1886).
[11] Completion of the Inner Circle took effect via a different route to that proposed under the Newman scheme (see note 8 above), and the Newman interests were paid compensation by the District and Metropolitan Companies.
[12] Parliamentary authorisation for a three and a half mile extension of the Metropolitan Railway from West Hampstead to Hendon was obtained by the Act of 7 August 1884. Perks told the Royal Commission on London Traffic on 17 March 1904: “We secured powers to construct a railway to Hendon. We there had to deal with three landowners, the Goldsmiths’ Company, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and another large landowner, and the price asked for the land by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was so extremely excessive that Sir Edward Watkin and the directors of the company decided to abandon that railway.”
[13] Powers for the extension to Oxford were obtained via the Oxford, Aylesbury and Metropolitan Junction Railway Act of 20 August 1883. See Alan A. Jackson, op. cit., p. 85.
[14] James Staats Forbes stood down from the chairmanship of the Metropolitan District Railway, to make way for R.W. Perks, on 5 September 1901. Forbes continued as an “Advisory Director to the Board” until resigning from that role on 17 February 1903. He died on 5 April 1904. It is hard to understand how Crane’s book came to go into print without this quite blatant error having been corrected.
[15] It was on 9 February 1905 that Perks stood down from the chairmanship of the Metropolitan District Railway. Perks stood down in favour of Charles Tyson Yerkes and became the company’s deputy-chairman. Because of Yerkes’s deteriorating health during 1905, most of the duties of chairmanship devolved back onto the shoulders of Perks from early May until the opening months of 1906 — when George Stegmann Gibb was appointed to succeed Yerkes, the latter having died in New York in December 1905.
[16] Unfortunately, I have so far failed to find when this Glasgow Herald letter was published, or to read its full text.
[17] R.W. Perks completed the requirements for his qualification as a solicitor in April 1875. The formalities of his entering into partnership with H.H. Fowler and Charles Corser, and the firm’s establishing itself in offices at 147 Leadenhall Street had been completed by 9 June 1875, that being the date one of their clerks formally lodged a document with the Chancery Court. It is straightforward to verify that “Corser, Fowler, and Perks” were in business well before the end of 1875. One has only to look at the London Gazette, 23 November 1875, pp. 5773-5774, for their notice of Application for a Provisional Order on behalf of the Llandudno Pier Company; and/or ibid, 26 November 1875, pp. 5836-5837, their notice for the Methodist Conference Bill for the 1876 session of Parliament. Nevertheless, R.W. Perks’s entry in the Dictionary of National Biography stated that it was in 1876 that he entered into partnership with H.H. Fowler — replicating the error made by Crane here.
[18] The “Methodist shipowner” referred to here was David James Jenkins (1824-1891). He was a neighbour of the Perks family during the time they lived in Highbury. Following the death of his first wife (in 1875) he married in August 1877 Alice Nash, a niece of Sir Francis Lycett’s.
[19] One of R.W. Perks’s earliest clients following his qualifying as a solicitor in 1875 was George Perks (1824-1892), a second cousin of the Rev. G.T. Perks, and the younger brother of William Perks (1822-1881) referred to in note 6 above. This George Perks was a prime mover in the scheme to construct a substantial promenade pier at Llandudno. R.W. Perks made the arrangements for the registration of the Llandudno Pier Company Ltd. In November 1875 and did the legal work for obtaining government authorisation to construct the pier. The prospectus inviting subscriptions for shares in the Llandudno Pier Company Ltd. cited the company’s solicitors as Corser, Fowler and Perks of 147 Leadenhall Street (The North Wales Chronicle, 11 December 1875, p. 8). Reports published in the local press suggest that R.W. Perks spent a good deal of time in Llandudno doing legal work on matters associated with the pier project during the two years that preceded the incident Crane recounts here.
[20] Crane’s account of this chance encounter in the coffee-room of the hotel in Llandudno bears a strong resemblance to the following passage in the unsigned article “Mr R.W. Perks M.P.” published in The British Monthly of January 1903: “He has himself told the story of the curious way in which he got his first Parliamentary work: I was spending my summer holiday in Llandudno in 1877 and was struck with the heavy tolls charged on Conway Bridge, and investigated the history of Telford’s celebrated structure in some detail. One day, as I was sitting in the coffee-room of the Imperial Hotel, I saw a coach and four drive up, and four men enter the room loudly complaining of the tolls they had just had to pay. Though quite a youngster I chimed in and said, ‘Well, gentlemen, you deserve to pay these rates, for years ago you should have taken the bridge from the Crown, vested it in Local Commissioners, and have reduced the rates.’ ‘How are we to do it?’ asked Sir Richard Bulkeley. ‘I will show you,’ I said. The result was that I was engaged to bring a bill into Parliament which I successfully carried, cancelling the debt due to the Treasury and vesting the bridge in local authorities. That was my first bill in Parliament.” There are some problems with this account. The Liverpool Mercury of 13 January 1877 (at p.7) published a report of Sir Richard Bulkeley presiding over “a large public meeting” at the Guildhall, Conway to consider the issue of the bridge tolls. Bulkeley spoke of “The very able and exhaustive report prepared by Mr. Perks … which had been widely circulated.” But the way Crane tells the story has the stylistic advantage of fitting in with the theme of a fortuitous event being followed by the “hero” taking swift decisive action which brings about longer-term benefits (see note 2 to this chapter). In Crane’s account here, the action occurs even more swiftly than in the British Monthly story: Perks being engaged “on the spot”.
[21] At some time during the first half of 1878 Perks was engaged as legal and financial adviser to the Ely and Bury St. Edmunds (Light) Railway Company, which had succeeded in obtaining Parliamentary authorisation but which was in trouble trying to raise sufficient funding to commence construction of its line. The third Marquess of Bristol (1834-1907) was chairman of the company, and Lord Francis Harvey (1846-1931) was a director. Meetings of the company’s board, which Perks usually attended, were typically held at the Rutland Arms, Newmarket.
[22] George Sholto Gordon Douglas-Pennant (1836-1907), who became Baron Penryn in 1886, was M.P. for Caernarvonshire from 1874 to 1880. He stood for re-election in the 1880 general election, but was defeated by the Liberal candidate 3303 to 2206. He did not stand for Parliament again.
[23] The eldest of the six daughters of G.T. Perks and his wife Mary was Mary Ann who was born 11 October 1846 in Perth, and who died 10 February 1847 in Perth (see note 18 to Chapter One). The youngest of the six was Georgina Ann who was born 7 January 1861 in Bristol, and who died 7 February 1864 at 49 City Road, London.
[24] R.W. Perks`s elder sister Isabella was born in Hammersmith 23 October 1847, and died on 22 April 1872 at the age of twenty-four.
[25] This sentence is misleading. The fourth of the six daughters of G.T. Perks and his wife Mary was named Mary. Born in Manchester in 1852, Mary died in Bournemouth on 24 March 1881. At the time of the 1881 Census (3 April), R.W. Perks’s mother was still living in the Highbury home G.T. Perks had purchased in 1867 (9 Leigh Road). With her was her daughter Flora Middleton Perks and her younger son George Dodds Perks. The family later moved south of the Thames, and the Leigh Road house was sold in July 1882 (see London Metropolitan Archives, Middlesex Deeds Register 1882/25/365).
[26] The oldest of R.W. Perks’s younger sisters was Elizabeth, born in Manchester in 1851. She was the only one of Perks’s sisters to marry, marrying Charles Volckman the younger on 5 October 1870 at Highbury Wesleyan Church. She died on 9 May 1891 at the age of 40. Perks’s longest-surviving sister, Flora Middleton Perks, died in her home in Beckenham in January 1925.
[27] William Mewburn senior (1817-1900) bought “the mansion and manor” at Wykham Park, just outside Banbury, in 1867 (Methodist Recorder, 1 November 1867, p. 381), having made his fortune as a member of the Manchester Stock Exchange. Before moving to Banbury, his home was in Halifax.
[28] Edith Mewburn was born in Halifax on 1July 1854. In a letter to his cousin John Hartley Perks in November 1875, R.W. Perks wrote that he had become engaged to marry Edith. In a “valedictory address” that R.W. Perks gave in Banbury in May 1917, he stated that it was “now 45 years” since he had first come to the town — suggesting that the visit Crane refers to here took place in 1872 or thereabouts (The Banbury Guardian, 24 May 1917, p. 8).
[29] John Lawson Walton (1852-1908) was a son of the Rev. John Walton (1823-1904), who was appointed a minister in the Highbury Circuit by the W.M. Conference of 1871. Lawson Walton was called to the bar in June 1877, became a Q.C. in 1890, entered Parliament in 1892 and was Attorney-General 1905-1908. Like Perks he matriculated for London University but never completed a London University B.A.