Radical Peckham: The Story Of Timothy Brown

By Derek Kinrade

We owe a debt of gratitude to Bill Ure, who revealed through his newsletter (No.101, Autumn, 2005) that William Cobbett, the famous polemicist, resided in the winter of 1815-16 at Peckham Lodge, near Rye Lane, as a guest of banker Timothy Brown. As far as I can tell, this episode had previously been noticed only by lain McCalman in 1988,¹ and was not mentioned in the monumental biography of Cobbett by George Spater in 1984.² 

Peckham Lodge, Rye Lane

Peckham Lodge does not appear on any of the early maps of Peckham, but Heaton’s Folly, which lay within its grounds, is marked by a dot on an 1810 map of Camberwell parish on the right hand side of a pathway leading from Peckham to Nunhead, approximately where the grounds of St Mary’s College were later situated, now occupied by Morrison’s car park. The original Lodge was leased from the de Crespignys who had inherited this and other properties from Isaac Heaton, its builder, in 1808. It was left in turn to Brown. 

Bill Ure, who is a relative of Cobbett, has told part of the story, but there is more: 

William Cobbett, a close friend

Cobbett, of course, is famous, particularly for his weekly Political Register, which so got under the skin of the establishment of the Establishment. One of his biographers, Daniel Green, has described him as “one who was hostile to the government and who had dedicated himself to the exposure of corruption and the destruction of the system”.³ Certainly he was perceived as dangerous, particularly in the context of a bitter war against France. Those in authority dearly wished to silence him and saw their opportunity when Cobbett used the Register to comment on what came to be known as the Ely Mutiny. A number of soldiers stationed at Ely unwisely refused to obey orders in response to some fairly minor grievances. Cavalry from the German Legion was called in, a summary court martial held and the reputed ringleaders sentenced to 500 lashes each. It should be understood that the lash, and the fear it was thought to induce, was then seen as the primary means ol maintaining discipline in the miserable ranks of the armed forces. But to Cobbett it was abhorrent, and he railed against both it and the Hanoverian involvement at Ely. It led him to express the hope that those who criticised Napoleon’s harsh discipline might in future be more cautious when they saw our own “gallant defenders not only required physical restraint, in certain cases, but even a little blood drawn from their backs, and that, too, with the aid of German troops”. 

Nowadays, any such level of comment in the media would hardly raise an eyebrow. But in 1809 it was enough for a charge to be filed against Cobbett for sedition, followed by a trial in 1810 when every possible infringement against the interests of the nation were successfully held against him. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of £1,000. In addition, he was required to- find two sureties to assure his keeping the peace for seven years after his release, He was committed to Newgate Prison, though this was not quite the calamity it may appear since, as Green puts it, “in those days influence and money could procure almost anything except freedom”. Not only was Cobbett able to live in some style, visited by Timothy Brown and other admirers from all over Britain,⁴ but continued to keep the Register going, every article carrying, beneath his signature, the address, ‘State Prison Newgate’ to rub in his sense of injustice. 

When he was released on 9 July 1812, Cobbett was entertained to dinner by Sir Francis Burdett, joined, it is said, by 600 guests, and hailed as a public hero. As Bill Ure has noticed, Timothy Brown became and remained one of Cobbett’s closest friends. He was one of the sureties for his ‘good behaviour’ and stood to forfeit £5,000 should the released prisoner overstep the mark, a very real risk given Cobbett’s predilection for plain-speaking. One possible reason for Cobbett’s stay at Peckham may simply have been Brown’s generosity. Newgate left Cobbett firmly in the camp of the radicals with a thirst for reform but, as Green shows, his imprisonment had also drained his resources, sales of the Register had declined and he had been for some time reliant on gifts and loans from well-wishers. By 1815 his financial position was precarious. He needed a rich, like-minded friend and a London base, and it appears likely that Timothy Brown came to his rescue. 

‘Equality Brown’, his partnership with Samuel Whitbread II

Brown’s hospitality was entirely in keeping with his reputation. Blanche tells us that he was known as ‘Equality Brown’ and described himself as the “well-known local democrat”.⁵ It is interesting that by 1875 he should be so described, when in his day he might have been thought dangerously radical rather than democratic. Apart from his banking interests, from 1799 to 1810 he was a partner with Samuel Whitbread in the famous brewing company. This was Samuel Whitbread, the son of the founder,⁶ and the partnership agreement between Brown and others contained a most unusual clause which freed Whitbread from attending personally to any business. This allowed him to follow his political aspirations. He had been elected MP for Bedford in 1791, a position he held for the rest of his life, in which he gained recognition as a champion of religious and civil rights and was notably prominent in seeking to improve provision for poor people, the abolition of slavery and attempts to introduce a national education system.⁷ Controversially, he also urged negotiations with France, admiring Napoleon Bonaparte and hoping that his reforms might be introduced in Britain. It would be tempting to suppose that beyond his financial interests, Brown found a synergy with Whitbread’s reformist views. In reality the reverse appears to have been the case as reforms might be introduced in Britain. It would be tempting to suppose that beyond his financial interests, Brown found a synergy with Whitbread’s reformist views. In reality the reverse appears to have been the case. Roger Fulford, Whitbread’s biographer, says that Brown was “noisy, opinionated and reforms might be introduced in Britain. It would be tempting to suppose that beyond his financial interests, Brown found a synergy with Whitbread’s reformist views. In reality the reverse appears to have been the case. Roger Fulford, Whitbread’s biographer, says that Brown was “noisy, opinionated and quarrelsome: he was rich and radical, and revealed to the world a combination which is happily rare – a banker with dangerous views”.⁸ In particular, Brown was “a fervent supporter of Burdett (Sir Francis Burdett), a stance not without embarrassment to Whitbread. In 1810 a dispute arose between the two partners, settled only by Brown being paid off. Whitbread wrote that he had “never been a very pleasant partner to me” and that the difference without him was incalculable”.⁹

Brown’s Association with Home Tooke. 

A happier relationship was that between Brown and another campaigner for radical change, John Home Tooke. Originally a priest, Home Tooke remained a champion of the Church of England throughout his life and had many esteemed, respectable friends. We owe to him the first steps to secure for the public the right of making available an account of parliamentary debates. As such he may be seen as an unlikely revolutionary. Yet he was imprisoned in 1777 for having solicited subscriptions for the relief of relatives of Americans “murdered by the King’s troops at Lexington and Concord”, and in 1769 was prominent in setting up a society to support a Bill of Rights, which he saw as a vehicle to campaign for a radical programme of parliamentary reform. But it was his involvement in The Society for Constitutional Information that most profoundly brought him into conflict with the government. The society, without doubt, enthusiastically supported much of the thinking that had promoted the French Revolution. On 14 July 1790, on the occasion of a first anniversary dinner, a resolution was passed rejoicing in the establishment and confirmation of liberty in France. But even here Home Tooke may be seen as a moderating influence, for he introduced a separate resolution to the effect that to achieve this English people had only “to maintain and improve the Constitution which their forefathers had transmitted to them.¹⁰ Nevertheless, he was one of three radical freethinkers arrested and tried for high treason in 1794. Pitt’s government, dreading an uprising similar to that in France, brought a huge weight of evidence against the defendants, determined to eradicate the radical movement. It was alleged that Home Tooke and his co-defendants had organised meetings seeking to encourage people to disobey the king and parliament. Prominent in the persecution’s massive case was Home Tooke’s support for Thomas Paine’s hugely successful Rights of Man. This had already been the pretext for a successful prosecution for seditious libel, obtained in Paine’s absence, the defendant having hurriedly and wisely fled to France. But in treason trials the public mood was against the establishment. To general rejoicing, after a trial that lasted for six anxious days, all three defendants were acquitted in eight minutes. 

However, Home Tooke had indeed been sympathetic to Paine’s ideas. During his time in London, Pain¹¹ was a frequent guest at Wimbledon Common, where Home Tooke’s famous Sunday dinners attracted many like-minded friends and associates.¹² They included some of the most distinguished men (and I do mean men) of letters, scientists and intellectuals of the day, some of them of a decidedly radical and reformist disposition, including Lord Erskine, Sir Francis Burdett, Gilbert Wakefield and Sir James MacKintosh.¹³ One of the most regular visitors was Timothy Brown, who “frequently rode over on a Sunday from his house at East Peckham, near Camberwell, on purpose to dine at Wimbledon… Tooke must have entertained a high opinion of the character and integrity of Mr. Brown as the latter was his banker for many years”.¹⁴ 

Home died on 18 March 1812 and the following few years it fell to Timothy Brown to continue the tradition of meetings, housing and encouraging radical discussion at his Peckham home. I noticed how Cobbett came to join him there and have suggested a possible explanation for his stay at Peckham. lain McCalman offers an alternative or perhaps additional scenario. He points out that Brown was fascinated with religion and philosophy as well as political radicalism. And that in addition to stimulating debate he had an important role in financing the publication of freethinking publications. One of these was particularly controversial. Early in 1813 Brown learned that a near-destitute Scottish journalist, George Houston, was seeking to secure the publication of a new English edition of Baron d’Holbach’s Ecce Homo!, to be published as A Critical Inquiry into the History of Jesus of Nazareth, being a rational analysis of the Gospels. The title is perhaps misleading. The baron was perhaps the first modem theorist of atheism and one of the most radical philosophers of the Enlightenment. Ecco Homo first appeared, in French and anonymously, in 1770.¹⁵ In a modern edition, Andrew Hunwick explains that d’Holbach regarded all religion as an illusion, based on fear and ignorance. In place of religious morality, which he rejected as socially harmful, he appealed for the establishment of a natural system of ethics, based on the needs of individuals as social beings, arguing that nature urges humanity to seek out its own happiness. The author’s close friend Denig Diderot observed that the text, which sought to demythologise the scriptures, was “raining bombs within the House of the Lord”, Jesus being presented as a normal human being, born normally. Hunwick sums up the contents as “a vehement attack on the Bible, Christian dogma and morality, and all aspects of Christian institutions”. 

When he heard of Houston’s initiative, Brown was, writes McCalman, “rapturous”. He tells us that “Brown threw the full weight of his wealth and influence behind its publication” and “encouraged and entertained Houston ceaselessly – even at ‘his parties for pleasure”, He subsidised the printing and publishing of the work, read and commented on the proofs and worked hard to promote its circulation. Then, in September 1813, a sceptical article in the Political Register, written by another freethinking publisher, George Cannon, inspired Brown to approach William Cobbett to give similar publicity to Ecco Homo. Despite some reservations, Cobbett, who was in favour of free expression, agreed, and he, Brown and other members of the Peckham circle, under various pseudonyms, co-operated in writing letters to the Register and the short-lived Theological Inquirer exploring and defending the arguments in Ecce Homo. It was hazardous territory. The radical publisher Daniel Isaac Eaton had been charged as publisher of d’Holbach’s book in November 1813, the prosecution only being dropped when Eaton revealed Houston as the translator.¹⁶ In November Houston was prosecuted and found guilty of blasphemous libel and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of 200 pounds.¹⁷ Although Cobbett went on to include further articles by Cannon in the Register,¹⁸ both he and Brown knew the game was up. To make matters worse, Houston having served sixteen months in Newgate, provided the authorities with information about Cobbett’s and Brown’s involvement in the publication of Ecce Homo.¹⁹ 

Last years

Brown remained supportive of Cobbett, but by 1820 his friend’s debts were dearly out of control. Spater tells us that Brown, himself “a friendly creditor, urged Cobbett to seek refuge in bankruptcy, and undertook the necessary procedures at his own expense. Typically, from a small house at 15 Lambeth Road where he was permitted to live, Cobbett used the period of his bankruptcy to brilliant effect, campaigning on behalf of the reviled Caroline of Brunswick to claim her place as queen to George IV. He was released from bankruptcy in November 1820, the burden of his debts lifted and his energy unimpaired. Timothy Brown was less fortunate, he died of a stroke on 4 September 1820.

Two Hundred years ago, dissent, including religious dissent, was a dangerous business. Darwin had yet to make his epic voyage on HMS Beagle, and his Origin of Species, with its cool scientific approach, had yet to make its revolutionary mark. Even today there will be many readers who find radical views, or some of them, unacceptable. But I ask them to reflect that these advocates of change began the struggle for human rights, the freedom of speech, for the Enlightenment, for the inclusive franchise, for universal education and for our parliamentary democracy (such as it is). Much that was once considered radical is now orthodox. In my view, nothing more important came out of Peckham.

Endnotes

1. lain McCalman. Radical Underworld. Cambridge University Press, 1988. 
2. George Spater. William Cobbett: The Poor Man’s Friend. Oxford University Press, 1984. 
3. Daniel Green. Great Cobbell, The Noblest Agitator. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1983. 
4. More than 1,000 according to Cobbett. 
5. William Harnett Blanche. Ye Parish of Camberwell (1875). 
6. I recall that as an Excise Officer I made several visits to the Chiswell Street premises and was eventually sent to check the last brew and finalise the firm’s involvement with the Revenue. The Shire horses and the brewery oozed prosperity. The fermenting room boasted an enormous unsupported roof, second only to that of Westminster Hall. 
7. A contemporary, Sir Samuel Romilly, described him as the “promoter of every liberal scheme for improving the condition of mankind, the zealous advocate of the oppressed, and undaunted opposer of every species of corruption and ill-administration”. He is said to have spoken in the House more often than any other member. 
8. Roger Fulford. Samuel Whitbread, 1764-1815, A Study in Opposition. London, Macmillan, 1967. 
9. ibid. 
10. Alexander Stephens. Memoirs of John Home Tooke. London, J. Johnson & Co., 1813. 
11. A former Excise Officer. 
12. William Hamilton Reid. Memoirs of the Public Life of John Home Took. London, 1812. 
13. See Alexander Stephens. Memoirs of John Home Tooke (1813). 
14. ibid. 
15. It is now available in a critical edition and revision of George Houston’s translation, edited by Andrew Hun wick (Berlin-New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1995). 
16. Daniel McCue Jr. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It has also been said that his age was a factor. He died in 1814, impoverished and exhausted. 
17. The radical publisher, Daniel Isaac Eaton, had also been previously charged – not far the first time. 
18. As Rev. Erasmus Perkins. 
19. Spater says the files of the Privy Council indicate that Houston sought employment as a government informer.