William Brooks (1763 - 1846), Roger Cunliffe (1767 - 1822), James Close (1799 - 1865) and the Brooks, Cunliffe and Close Banking Families

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution in Great Britain is generally said to have started about 1760.  It was characterised by many changes in the way British society was organised, such as the growth of towns and cities and the movement of population from the countryside.  Manufacturing activity, previously dispersed and largely home-based, became concentrated in the conurbations, typically in factories.  The accompanying demand for raw materials led to the opening of mines and quarries on a large scale, along with the means to transport raw materials, people and manufactures.  Roads were improved, canals dug and, from about 1830, railways were constructed on a massive scale.  The merchant shipping fleet expanded so that by the mid-19^th century more than half the world’s merchant tonnage was British.

Lancashire and the Cotton Industry

Prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution, Lancashire had an extensive, craft-based wool spinning and weaving industry.  A century later these activities had become industrialised, vastly expanded and diversified into another fibre, cotton.  By 1825 cotton was Britain’s biggest import and the cotton industry had become largely concentrated in Lancashire, with spinning occurring predominantly in the southern towns and weaving in the northern ones.  The reasons for cotton’s concentration in Lancashire can be recited by most school kids, fast-flowing streams providing water power and soft water for washing cloth.  Later, when steam engines replaced water wheels, native coal was readily available for fuelling them.   Lancashire had an existing skilled textile workforce and the Port of Liverpool was ideally placed for importing cotton from the southern American states and for exporting textile manufactures around the world.  By 1850 the county was producing more than 50% of the world’s cotton manufactures

The Development of Banking Services

But the Industrial Revolution also depended on the development of banking services to facilitate trade and manufacture, through the provision of loans and credit and as a safe store for spare cash from successful customers.  Initially, banking services were introduced as an adjunct to other, generally profitable, commercial activities, such as brewing, manufacturing, mining and retailing. Taylor and Lloyds, the progenitor of today’s Lloyds Banking Group, had been in the iron trade before starting as bankers in Birmingham in 1765.   Such commercial activities brought spare capital for investment in banking premises and services, business contacts and the acumen necessary for making banking decisions.

The Brooks, Close and Cunliffe Banking Families 

All three of the banking families under consideration here, Brooks, Close and Cunliffe, owed their origins to the Lancashire cotton industry.  They were all, in their separate ways, highly successful and became dynasties, whose influence can still be discerned today in Britain’s sophisticated and highly successful financial services industry.  There were also significant interactions between the Brooks and the Cunliffe families and, separately, between the Brooks and the Close families, though in the former case, the interactions did not endure.  Inevitably, such families contained many talented and prominent individuals, deserving of study in their own right.  Most of these able people seem to have been unashamed wealth generators but they also had social consciences, which was typical of Victorian times and frequently used their wealth and influence to promote good causes. This account seeks to trace the origins and interactions of the three families, their occasional failures and their many successes.

“Cunliffe” is a localised, Lancastrian, topographical surname.  It was first recorded in 1246 near Rishton, which lies on the north east side of Blackburn.  Its derivation, which is rather obvious, is a cliff with a fissure.  Clearly our medieval forebears did not have a problem with the use of Anglo-Saxon words!  Interestingly, the Cunliffe family on which the present account concentrates are said to have been mercers (people who dealt in cloth) since Elizabethan times and hailed from Great Harwood, which lies a little further north east of Blackburn than Rishton.  Parish records for the 17^th century for this area of Lancashire abound with Cunliffes who were connected with textiles, for example linen weavers and plodwoavers (weavers of checked cloth). “Brooks” is also a topographical surname, indicating a relationship to a brook or stream.  It has a wide geographical distribution throughout most of England, suggesting that it may well have arisen independently many times.  The Brooks family that will be followed here originated around Whalley in the Ribble Valley, Lancashire, about 5 miles north of Blackburn.  The earliest known, linked Brooks ancestor hailed from Waddington, 5 miles north of Whalley.  “Close”, too, is of topographical origin, meaning an enclosure.  It has been reported that the Closes may originally have been continental immigrants to Leeds and that their name was spelled “Klose”, which has a quite different origin, being a contraction of the personal name “Nikolaus”.  However, in the 1881 British Census, there were only nine people in the UK with the surname Klose and they all lived in the London area.  “Close”, on the other hand is a frequent, mainly North of England name, reaching its highest concentration in the North Riding of Yorkshire.

Members of all three families were mostly fecund in the generations extending from the mid-18^th century to the early 20^th century, though there were significant exceptions.  Further, they tended to use a fairly limited lexicon of given names.  In order to make clear to which individual reference is being made, his or, occasionally, her date of birth has been added in brackets after the name.  Samuel, Thomas and John (Brooks); John, Thomas, William and Henry (Close); Henry, John and, especially, Roger (Cunliffe) are names which are so frequent that confusion could otherwise easily arise and, indeed, has arisen for some other authors writing about the Cunliffes!  The popularity of “Roger” in this family probably resulted from the first Cunliffe banker being called “Roger” - Roger Cunliffe (1767).

Origin of Cunliffe Brooks and Co

The Brooks family from in and around Whalley were, during the 18^th century, farmers who also became involved in textiles.  William Brooks (1763) was a supplier of raw cotton and twist to spinners in the district, which was then carded and spun.  It is also rumoured that the Brooks family bought a safe and, for a small fee, would store money and other valuable for their neighbours.  William Brooks (1763) was shown great respect “for the value of his advice and for the probity of his character” by those with whom he had dealings.  In 1792 he went into partnership with his friend, Roger Cunliffe (1767) who came from a wealthier background.  Together they established the firm of Cunliffe, Brooks and Co, weaving calico, a cotton fabric, in a hand loom mill in Blackburn.  (The power loom had already been invented in 1785 but it required progressive development over a period of about 40 years before it was employed extensively.  In 1803 there were only 2,400 power looms in the UK but by 1829 that number had grown to 55,500.)  Roger Cunliffe (1767) said of his business partner that his (William’s) honesty and shrewdness had convinced him (Roger) to join in the weaving venture.  When William Brooks died in 1846, the Liverpool Mercury said of him that he had been “distinguished throughout life alike by his industry, sound judgement, integrity of purpose and the success which attended him.”   The cotton firm succeeded but the partners realised that there was a need for banking services in association with the manufacture and sale of cotton goods.  Thus the firm diversified by issuing primitive bank notes, which circulated in the Blackburn area, as an adjunct to its manufacturing activities.  Soon the banking business was able to stand on its own feet but it was only in 1815 that the bank is known to have had a formal, separate existence, though it may have been established earlier.

Family of William Brooks (1763)

The early years of the 19^th century were a period of rapid growth in the economy of Lancashire and William Brooks (1763) was keen to see his sons, who proved to be very able, established in employment.  William Brooks (1790) may have been a cotton manufacturer but died at the early age of 31.  Richard Brooks became a surgeon, practising in Blackburn but he too died young in 1822.  John Brooks (1788) became established in a partnership of calico printers with Mr Butterworth as early as 1810.  This partnership was very successful and branched out into both cotton spinning and weaving.  In addition, John Brooks (1788) expanded his commercial activities to include quarry and coal mine ownership.  By 1831 he was sufficiently wealthy to have a grand home built, Crawshaw Hall, at Crawshawbooth, about 8 miles south west of Blackburn.  He was politically active, standing as a Liberal Parliamentary candidate at one stage.  In addition he was a prominent member of the Anti-Corn Law League and was recognised as a powerful public speaker.  John was also known for his liberality to employees and others who were in distress.  Thomas Brooks (1799) became established as a calico printer, joining with his business partner Mr Grimshaw before 1821 and possibly as early as 1816.  Samuel Brooks (1793) must have left school about 1805 and joined the Cunliffe, Brooks and Co cotton business in Blackburn as a paid employee working in the warehouse.  It has been claimed that about 1815, possibly on reaching his majority and possibly at the time that the bank became established as a separate business, he was admitted as a partner in the bank, though other evidence suggests that he did not become a partner until about 1822. Samuel also became a calico printer with a partner, Mr Reddish, at least by 1819. By the early 1820s the calico printing industry had become concentrated in Manchester and all three calico printing businesses, which involved the Brooks brothers as junior partners, moved to that great city, then popularly known as “Cottonopolis”.  They were all located in High Street, Butterworth and Brooks at no 58, Grimshaw and Brooks at no 17 and Reddish and Brooks at no 18.

Families of Roger Cunliffe (1767) and his Brothers

Roger Cunliffe (1767), one of the founding partners in the bank had at least two brothers, Henry (1764) and John (1773) and one sister.  John (1773) became a partner in the Blackburn bank.  He died in 1836.  Henry (1764) was a cotton manufacturer, dealer and retailer, but in 1793 he was declared bankrupt.  There seems to be no evidence of his involvement in banking.  Both Roger (1767) and John (1773) married but neither produced any children, though John (1773) and his wife adopted a daughter.  Thus the involvement of the Cunliffes in banking in the following generation was solely through two of the three sons of Henry (1764) - James (1792) and Roger (1794).

Early Banking Partnerships

In addition to the founding partners, Roger Cunliffe (1767) and William Brooks (1763), in the Blackburn bank, other partners were taken into the business.  It was not until 1819 that we have a definitive account of the partnership, actually on its dissolution!  Before that year the partnership had consisted of Roger Cunliffe (1767), William Brooks (1763), John Cunliffe (1773), Roger Cunliffe (1794) and John Roby.  Samuel Brooks was not identified as a partner.  In that year John Roby, who had been a partner since at least 1816, left the partnership.  By 1822, Samuel Brooks (1793) and James Cunliffe (1792) had been added but founder Roger Cunliffe (1767) died in the same year.  The Cunliffes were clearly the dominant partners at this stage, probably reflected in the precedence of their surname in the trading style of the firm, which was most frequently represented as “Cunliffes, Brooks and Co”.  Samuel Brooks had married Margaret Hall in February 1818.  Margaret was pregnant at the time and probably gave birth to twins in May of that year.  Only the female infant, Sarah, survived.  In September of the following year a son was born and he received “William” and “Cunliffe” as his given names, the first after his paternal grandfather and the second, presumably, a mark of the esteem in which the Cunliffes were held by their Brooks business partners. William, throughout life, used his full name, making it appear that “Cunliffe” was part of his surname, rather than a second given name.  Clearly, at this stage, 17 years after the founding of the firm, the relationship between the Brooks and Cunliffe families was strong.  It is also interesting that, even after all the Cunliffe partners had died or resigned, the Brookses still retained “Cunliffe” in the bank’s title (except in London).   

Cunliffes, Brooks and Co was not the only bank in which the Cunliffe family was involved.  Before 1819 another banking partnership was established in Rochdale involving Joseph Fenton, William Eccles, Roger Cunliffe and John Roby.  William Eccles left the partnership in 1819 and Roger Cunliffe died in 1833.  The identity of this Roger Cunliffe is currently not known.  It could not have been Roger (1767) who died in 1822, nor Roger (1794) who survived until 1864.  In 1829 John Roby had his own banking firm, John Roby and Co, in Rochdale and in the following year he had joined with John and Joseph Fenton in another banking partnership, Fentons and Roby, also in Rochdale.  John Roby was something of a polymath.  In addition to banking he had a number of other business activities, he wrote poetry, he was an amateur botanist and lectured on plant physiology, he was a very active supporter of the Conservative party and he wrote papers for the Religious Tract Society.  Sadly, he was drowned when the steamship “Orion” was driven onto rocks near Port Patrick on a passage from Liverpool to Glasgow in 1850.

Blackburn, Manchester and London Banks

By 1815 Cunliffes, Brooks and Co had become well established in Blackburn but the opportunities for further expansion lay elsewhere.  In 1819 Samuel Brooks (1793) was established in the calico printing firm of Reddish and Brooks in the centre of Manchester.  He was given the task of setting up a branch of the bank in this commercial capital of the cotton world.  This he did in a small room with a low ceiling in the warehouse of Reddish and Brooks at 18 High Street, a very modest start for an institution which would subsequently be associated with great success and wealth.  It has been claimed that in about 1816 Roger Cunliffe (1794) was tasked with establishing an agency for the Blackburn bank in Bucklersbury, in the City of London, a street which barely exists today.  In 1819 the London agency had become established as a bank in its own right.  These were audacious moves on the part of the bank’s partners, not only in taking their banking services to the very centres of business opportunity but also in entrusting these tasks to two scions of the founding families of such tender years.  In 1819, Samuel Brooks would have been 26 and in 1816, Roger Cunliffe would have been 19!  Curiously, the new London bank did not trade under the name of Cunliffe, Brooks and Co but under the name of Roger Cunliffe and it retained its location in Bucklersbury until 1852.

Roger Cunliffe (1767) died in 1822.  He left a personal estate of £287,622 (which is the equivalent of >£28.5M in 2016 money using an RPI-based methodology).  At that time the Blackburn bank partnership consisted of William Brooks (1763), Samuel Brooks (1793), John Cunliffe (1773), Roger Cunliffe (1794) and James Cunliffe (1792) and remained stable until 1835.  In that year Roger Cunliffe (1794) left the partnership.  The reason for his departure is not known but it may have been related to his responsibilities in the London bank bearing his name.  The lack of a business connection between the Blackburn bank of Cunliffes, Brooks and Co, on the one hand and Roger Cunliffe’s London bank, on the other, is emphasised by the fact that the Blackburn bank established its own London branch in about 1822, at 29 Lombard Street.  It is not certain how this branch was managed in its early years but it was probably the responsibility of James Cunliffe (1792).  In 1834 James Cunliffe moved his home permanently from Blackburn to London, though he remained a partner in Cunliffes, Brooks and Co. This change roughly coincided with his brother Roger’s (1794) resignation from the Blackburn bank.

Cunliffes, Brooks and Co – Evolution of the Partnership

The partnership of Cunliffes, Brooks and Co, originally dominated by Cunliffes, progressively changed over the years.  In 1822 it consisted of four Cunliffes and two Brookses but with the death of Roger Cunliffe (1767) in that year, the resignation of Roger Cunliffe (1794) in 1835 and the death of John Cunliffe (1773) in 1836, the balance shifted markedly in favour of the Brooks family.  It was in these circumstances that a disagreement arose between the families.  William Cunliffe Brooks (1819), eldest son of Samuel (1793), had an outstanding intelligence.  In 1831 he was sent to Rugby School to sit the entrance examination and, at the age of 12, was assessed to be at a level of the upper fifth in mathematics.  After Rugby he entered St John’s College, Cambridge, graduating in 1842.  Samuel Brooks was keen for his eldest son to be admitted to the partnership at the bank on graduation and asked the one remaining Cunliffe partner, James (1792) if he would agree, but he declined, with the result that William  Cunliffe Brooks (1819) studied for the bar and then spent some years as a barrister on the Northern circuit.  The reason for the refusal is not known but may have related to the Brooks family gaining control of the bank, previously dominated by the Cunliffes.  Perhaps the decision by James Cunliffe (1792) was taken without fully thinking through the consequences?  He subsequently asked that his son Roger (1824) be admitted to the partnership, on reaching his majority in 1845.  Not surprisingly, the Brookses declined.  In the words of William Cunliffe Brooks (1819), reported by the minister of Kincardine O’Neil, Aberdeenshire, many years later, there ensued a “race for life” between Samuel Brooks (1793) and James Cunliffe (1792), which was won by Samuel.  Samuel’s father William (1763) died in 1846 at his home of 50 years, Lawson-stead House, Whalley and James Cunliffe (1792) followed him in 1854, thus leaving Samuel Brooks (1793) as the sole partner of Cunliffes, Brooks and Co.  William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) was then admitted as a partner and the Brooks take-over of the bank was complete.

The Career of Samuel Brooks (1793)

Samuel Brooks (1793) proved to be an astute banker and this was illustrated by his sure-footed handling of the 1825-26 banking crisis.  In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars there was a stock market boom based on easy credit but the bubble finally burst in 1825 when many banks, short of cash, could not meet their obligations and closed their doors.  Panic withdrawals from the remaining banks with their doors still open ensued.  In the Manchester branch of Cunliffes, Brooks and Co, Samuel instructed his staff to open several bags of flour, fill the tops with gold sovereigns and put them on display on the premises.  He also kept the doors of the bank open late into the evenings, allowing worried customers to recover their savings with ease.  Confidence quickly returned and the bank run, as far as Cunliffes, Brooks and Co was concerned, was stemmed.  During the 1830s and 1840s there was a boom in railway building and Samuel Brooks took the opportunity to make investments in new railway companies.  A document placed before the House of Commons in 1845 showed that of £6M which had been invested in railways from Manchester, Samuel Brooks had placed £154,500.  However, Samuel’s greatest financial achievement outwith the bank was a series of investments in land improvement in and around the booming city of Manchester.  About 1836 he bought land at Mosside which, following development, he called Whalley Range after the village of his Brooks ancestors. In 1831 its population had been 208 but by 1871 numbers had ballooned to 5,403 and it had become a fashionable suburb of Manchester.  Samuel had a home built there for his own use and named it Whalley House.  He also undertook other major property developments at Baguley, Sale, Timperly, Partington and Carrington Moss. Samuel Brooks suffered from adult onset diabetes and was unwell for about 2 years before his death. At least in 1863 and 1864 it appears that his able brother, Thomas Brooks (1829), was a partner in the bank.    When Samuel died in 1864 he was reputed to be the richest man in Manchester and was popularly known in the Salford area by the name of “Owd stink o’ brass”.  He left estate valued at £2.5M (£285M in 2016 money) and his eldest son, William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) inherited the bank, generally reckoned to have been worth about £1M (£114M in 2016 money).

Bank Names and Locations

The banking activity started in 1792 by Roger Cunliffe (1767) and William Brooks (1763) was probably known by the trading style of the partners’ cotton business, Cunliffe and Brooks.  However, after the formal establishment of the bank and the addition of extra partners about 1815, the bank seems to have had the name Cunliffes, Brooks and Co.  In the period 1824-25 the name was often represented as Cunliffes, Brooks, Cunliffes and Co., though as mortal attrition took its toll, Cunliffes, Brooks and Co seemed to re-establish itself in the period up to 1851.  Between 1851 and 1861 the London office was sometimes known as “Cunliffes and Co” and by 1864 that name was established as the norm.  Although James Cunliffe (1792) had died in 1854, his sons Roger (1824), John (1825) and Henry (1827) had become bankers and joined Cunliffes and Co in London.  Perhaps it was agreed at some point with Samuel Brooks (1794) or William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) that the London branch of the Manchester bank would become a Cunliffe province?  In 1864 William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) opened a new branch office in London which traded under the name of Brooks and Co, presumably to distinguish it from the now separate Cunliffes and Co.  By 1864 Cunliffes and Co must have been a separate entity from the Manchester bank because an agreement was reached with Alexanders to merge the two London operations under the style of Alexanders, Cunliffes and Co.  The business location of the bank in London changed on a number of occasions.  On foundation in 1824 it was located at 29 Lombard Street, where it remained until at least 1844.  By 1852 it had been moved to 24 Lombard Street.  According to Grindon, the original London bank ceased to exist with the death of James Cunliffe, but that was not the case.  It continued as Cunliffes and Co at 24 Lombard Street until the merger with Alexanders in 1864. The same year William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) opened a new London branch at 81 Lombard Street.  It commenced business on 18^th April 1864 under the name of Brooks and Co and under the supervision of Mr John Spencer, previously a chief clerk with James Cunliffe (1792).  This name was maintained until 1900 when it was lost in the merger with Lloyds.  In Manchester the bank was originally located in 18 High Street but in 1826 moved to bigger and better premises at 83 Market Street.  In 1846, on the death of founding partner William Brooks (1763), the headquarters of the bank were moved from Blackburn to Manchester and in 1847 the headquarters moved to a new building at 92 King Street.  During the time that William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) was in charge, additional branches were opened at Altrincham, Sale and Darwen. In Burnley the bank constructed magnificent new premises about 1870.  The building is now Grade 2 listed and probably the work of architect George Truefitt, who designed many buildings for William Cunliffe Brooks (1819). This building is still being used by Lloyds Group.

William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) and Succession Planning   

To understand the further evolution of Cunliffes, Brooks and Co it is necessary to evaluate the family life of William Cunliffe Brooks (1819).  William married Elizabeth Jane Orrell in 1842.  The couple is known to have produced 5 children but, sadly only 2 survived to adulthood, Amy, born in 1850 and Edith, born in 1853.  Their mother, Elizabeth, did not enjoy robust health and died in 1865.  Although William subsequently remarried, his second union was childless.  Thus William Cunliffe Brooks (1819), although extremely wealthy, produced no male heir to whom he could pass on the bank and other assets.  Succession planning bedevilled his life for the next 30 years as each new scheme fell apart.  His two daughters married into the aristocracy.  Amy, born in 1850, married Charles Gordon, 11^th Marquis of Huntly, owner of extensive estates in Scotland and England, in 1869 after a whirlwind romance.  His father in law must have considered Lord Huntly as a potential successor at the bank.  Unfortunately, the Gordon estates were indebted and Charles Gordon’s disinterest in estate management, coupled with financial incompetence, made his situation worse, culminating in his personal bankruptcy in 1898.  Charles Gordon must have been quickly discarded as a potential successor. Further, this union proved to be childless, so there was no grandson as a potential heir.

Eighteen sixty nine was significant for William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) for two other reasons.  In that year he rented the Glen Taner estate from Lord Huntly’s mother for the first time, subsequently buying the property.  It was also the year that he first became an MP, when he was elected as the Conservative member for East Cheshire.  In 1886 he stood unsuccessfully in the Macclesfield Division but was not out of Parliament for long.  At the same election his nephew, John Brooks (1856) was elected but sadly died the same year.  William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) then successfully stood in his place, holding the seat until he stood down at the 1892 General Election.  Paradoxically, service to the Conservative Party was the reason for him being raised to a baronetcy in 1886, yet party politics was the aspect of his life which he least enjoyed.     

William Cunliffe Brooks’ second daughter, Edith, who had been born in 1853, married Lord Francis Cecil, the second son of the Marquis of Exeter, in 1874. Francis Cecil, who had had a brief and unsuccessful career in the Royal Navy, proved to be even more incompetent than Lord Huntly, spending his time burning what little money he had on racing large yachts.  His father in law, perhaps desperate by now, did see him as a successor at Cunliffes, Brooks and Co, and even made an announcement in the press in 1877 about Lord Cecil’s introduction as a partner at the bank.  This plan was never implemented.  Lord Cecil was declared bankrupt in 1889 and died soon afterwards at the early age of 38.  At least the marriage of Edith and Francis Cecil was fertile, producing 3 daughters and 2 sons, Ean Cecil (1880) and Richard Cecil (1882), both of whom eventually benefitted under William Cunliffe Brooks’ will dealing with his Scottish estate.

William Cunliffe Brooks recruits his successors (at last!)

But what of the Cunliffes, Brooks and Co bank?  William (1819) had become the sole partner in 1864 on the death of his father Samuel (1793).  Two of William Cunliffe Brooks’ nephews, John Brooks Close (1851), the son of his sister, Anne Brooks (1821) and James Close (1799) (the Close family will be dealt with later) and Samuel Burd (1845), the son of his sister Sarah (1818) and William Burd (1820) joined the bank as employees.  In 1871 John Brooks Close (1851) was a student at Cambridge University but, on graduating, he appears to have entered the bank and was very soon in charge of day to day affairs in the Manchester Head Office, while William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) devoted much of his energy to his work as an MP and, especially, to his passion for developing his newly-acquired Scottish estate at the Forest of Glen Taner.  The date of entry of Samuel Burd (1845) to the bank is unclear but in 1871 he was working as a bank clerk in London, presumably the London office of the bank, which by that date was probably known by its new trading name of Brooks and Co.  In 1881, Samuel Burd (1845) was described as a banker and still living in London.  By this date and probably much earlier he must have been in day to day charge of the London office.  At least in the case of these two young nephews, William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) would have been able to observe their performance in important posts within the bank before deciding to admit them to the partnership.  In 1888 both John Brooks Close (1851) and Samuel Burd (1845) were so admitted, each acquiring 10% of the partnership.  As a condition of entry, each was obliged to assume the additional surname “Brooks”, clearly an attempt by William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) to ensure that the family name remained attached to the bank.  A notice appeared in the London Gazette in February of the following year announcing that John Brooks Close and Samuel Burd had received the royal licence to assume “in compliance with the earnest desire of their maternal uncle Sir William Cunliffe Brooks”, the arms and surname of Brooks.  But William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) still retained a controlling financial interest and the partnership was governed by a series of time-limited, 6-month partnership agreements which continued until his death in 1900.  William Cunliffe Brooks left personal estate of £1,157,253 (>£135M in 2016 money).

The Lloyds take-over

According to his son in law, the Marquis of Huntly, William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) was immensely proud of the fact that Cunliffes, Brooks and Co was the last private bank in Manchester.  He believed that the personal approach that had evolved at the bank was superior to the way that joint stock banks were managed and he wanted this arrangement to be retained after his own demise.  Sadly, the tide of history was running against this view, as private banks were converted to joint stock banks, or were taken over by such entities.  Within the remarkably short time of 2 weeks following his death in June 1900, the remaining partners sold Cunliffes, Brooks and Co to Lloyds Bank (Limited), which had itself converted to joint stock status in 1865.  Thus, not only did the family name not survive in the name of the bank but the bank’s private status was also lost.  However, the family connection with the bank was not terminated.  Probably as part of the agreement for sale, John Brooks Close Brooks (1851), as he now was, was retained as manager and also became a member of the main board at the new owner.  Lloyds were also at pains to emphasise to Cunliffes, Brooks and Co customers that the style of operation of the bank would be sustained.  Samuel Burd Brooks appears to have retired at the time of the Lloyds take-over and in the 1901Census he was described as a retired banker living at 1 Evelyn Gardens, Kensington.  He died in 1908 leaving effects valued at over £132,000 (>£14.2M in 2016 money).  Thus, the 108 year existence of Cunliffes, Brooks and Co was brought to a close.

Origins of the Close Family

Returning to the Close family and its origins, according to James Close (1799), of whom much will be written later, his great grandfather Joseph Close had been a grazier living near Leeds, Yorkshire.  Family rumour had it that the Closes were immigrants from Continental Europe some generations before.  John Close (1733), son of Joseph Close and grandfather of James Close (1799), was described as “A wealthy and influential citizen of Leeds, a man of science and the most extensive buyer and finisher of woollen stuffs of his time.”  He had clearly made the move out of agriculture and into the woollen industry at the start of the Industrial Revolution.  His son John (1764) appears to have been involved in his father’s business and travelled in Europe, perhaps representing the firm.  By 1794 he had returned to Britain but to Lancashire, not Yorkshire and in that year he married Mary Rylance in Liverpool.  Between the year of the marriage and 1811 the couple produced at least 9 children.  Mary Close (nee Rylance) had suffered personal tragedy, losing both her parents before she reached her adult years.  Financially, her circumstances were comfortable as she had been left an income of about £300/year from house rents.  However, she seems to have been a difficult person, keeping a tight grip on finances, eschewing debt and criticising her husband’s family because of their adherence to Methodism.  She also felt that her husband lacked drive in his business affairs, a view echoed by her son James Close (1799), who seems to have shared elements of his mother’s personality.

John Close (1764) established a cotton manufacturing and trading company with partners Mr Barlow and Mr Wittemberg in Manchester.  On the retirement of the other partners John Close (1764) renamed the firm John Close & Co and Solomon Reinhold, previously a clerk, became his partner.  It shipped cotton goods to agents in Cologne and Heligoland and, about 1799, it established a branch on the island of Sicily. John Close (1764) became very active in public affairs in Manchester, such as the agitation for free trade and the protests against the taxation of malted liquor.  Charitable causes in education, health and the relief of poverty frequently received his donations and his active involvement.  John seems to have had an amiable temperament and that may have been the reason for James Close’s criticism of his father, for James (1799) subsequently proved to have a driven personality in the conduct of his own business affairs. 

In 1805 sons James (1799), John (1797) and Thomas Close (1796) were sent away to boarding school at Formby in Liverpool.  James, the youngest of the 3 was only 6 years old and found the experience of being separated from his family to be particularly traumatic.  Partly as a result of this experience he later formulated his own educational philosophy and applied it to the upbringing of his own extensive family.  He believed strongly in home education and he also favoured the teaching of practical subjects, which would prepare children for the world of work, over classical subjects, like Latin.  After completing school in England, James (1799) and John Close (1797) were sent, in 1814, on a business-orientated course of study in Frankfurt. Brother Thomas (1796) was despatched to Manchester Grammar School.  About 2 years later James Close (1799) moved on to a position as an unpaid forwarding clerk in the port city of Le Havre.  This placement ended badly when he had a row with a partner of the firm, concerning the alleged incompetence of a colleague.  The outcome was that the cock-sure and angry James promptly resigned.

James Close (1799) is sent to Italy

On his return to England in 1818 James Close (1799) worked for his father’s company on the manufacture and processing of fustian (a rough cloth made with a mixture of cotton with wool or flax).  While he had been away on continental Europe, James (1799) had become a competent linguist and his father subsequently, in 1819, sent him to work as assistant to his export agent in the city of Messina in Sicily.  This was at a time before the unification of Italy into one state and Sicily and the southern half of the Italian peninsula (known as the Two Sicilys) were under the sway of the Bourbon kings.  The Messina agent, Mr Fischer unexpectedly resigned soon after the arrival of James (1799) and he was precipitated into the role of agent. By 1819 John Close’s (1764) firm was controlled by himself and two business partners, son Thomas (1796), who had joined the business about 1815 and Solomon Reinhold.   About 1822 James' (1799) brother John (1797) joined him in Sicily, but James (1799) almost immediately left for Manchester, as his fiance Christiana, possibly frustrated at his long absence had turned to someone else.  This was much to the consternation of John (1797) who, with little experience, was left in charge in Messina.  James’ journey was in vain. On his return to Sicily, the headstrong James (1799) created his own firm by renaming his father’s company there as “James Close and Co” and in 1824 he founded a branch of the company in Naples, where the court of King Ferdinand II was located.  James (1799) went to live in Naples, where there was a substantial expatriate community, while brother John Close (1797) remained in charge of the Messina agency.

In 1826 the Manchester firm was declared bankrupt and this setback was blamed by James Close (1799) on his perception of his father’s inertia and his trust in the abilities of others, i.e. brother Thomas (1796) and Solomon Reinhold.  Tension between James (1799) and Thomas (1796) led to a long period of animosity, lasting most of their adult lives.  The truth concerning the failure of the business is not certainly known but its coincidence with the bank crash of late 1825 – 1826 may indicate an external financial cause.  The firm did not go out of existence but seems to have received a cash injection via Thomas Close (1796). Soon after the bankruptcy Thomas Close married Ellen Smith of Nottingham.  Her father had died and left her in comfortable financial circumstances.  Thomas invested £500 of his wife’s money in the Manchester business, thus relieving its debts.  In return for the investment he received 3/8 of the profits. By 1832 Solomon Reinhold had departed and John Close (1797) and James Close (1799) had joined the partnership. John Close (1764) died in 1833 and, at this time, Thomas (1796) left the Manchester partnership.

Thomas Close (1796) and Nottingham 

Thomas (1796) moved to Nottingham and his life now turned in a different direction.  He became very active and prominent in civic and national affairs, promoted by the fact that he and his wife were wealthy, did not need to work and produced no children.  Politically he was a Radical, campaigning for the abolition of slavery and the repeal of the Corn Laws.  He was a founder member of the Reform Club and, in later life, he devoted himself to literary, scholastic and musical activities.  He died in 1881, leaving a personal estate of <£60,000 (<£6.6M in 2016 money).

James Close (1799), Merchant and Banker

Naples was a good market for British manufactures in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars but British exporters were faced with the problem of finding return cargoes, as the Naples region had little to offer for sale in Britain.  Merchants had to use their ingenuity, which often involved picking up cargoes from elsewhere around the Mediterranean.  The financing of these complicated trades also presented problems, for there were no international banks at the time and merchants in effect became bankers.  Invoices were paid with credit or with bills of exchange and the higher ethical standards of the British traders ensured that there was general confidence in them.  Thus was James Close (1799) propelled by the same forces that had induced the Cunliffe and Books families to introduce banking services a quarter of a century earlier in Blackburn.  It is not known if the previous 2 generations of Close merchants, John (1764) and John (1733) had been driven by the same imperatives.

In 1834, James Close (1799) married Henrietta Gaskell, daughter of a Wigan solicitor.  It was a happy marriage but in 1836 she died giving birth to their only child, Henry Gaskell Close (1836).  For the next 10 years James Close (1799) remained unmarried, devoting himself to the development of his business. He gained a reputation for being the most enterprising and dynamic British merchant in Naples.  In 1833 he set up a type foundry and, later, a printing press.  During 1838 he organised a joint stock company to manufacture cotton textiles locally.  James also bought a depot for olive oil, some warehouses and also several ships.  There was inevitably a degree of tension with the local community and an attempt by him to develop local land was blocked.  In 1839 he inaugurated the first coastal steamer service on the west coast of the Two Sicilys using steamers built in England. James Close was also involved in many public works, including public health, the drainage system and the waterworks of the city of Naples.

James Close (1799), King Ferdinand II and the acquisition of “Sibilla”   

Inevitably, James Close (1799) came into contact with King Ferdinand II and their relationship grew. James progressed to providing banking services to the king, as well as acting as his business adviser.  He was created Cavaliere (equivalent of a knighthood) by Ferdinand II.  At the time there was much republican sentiment in the Naples area and James backed the king in the actions he took to suppress the republicans, possibly out of self-serving business interest.  This support was complicated by the fact that his sister, Paulina, had married into a prominent local republican family, the Romanos.  The Neapolitan navy was poorly equipped to support the king and he saw an opportunity to modernise his fleet by prevailing upon James Close to swap two of his steamers, the “Dieppe” and the “Brighton”, for two schooners, the “Sibilla” (140 tons) and the Sphynx. James and the family sailed the “Sibilla” to Portsmouth in the summer of 1851 where she was refitted.  Anne Close travelled on to her father’s house in Manchester where son James was born.  The family sailed back to Naples in “Sibilla” in a creditable time of 14 days.

The Close and Brooks families join together

It is not surprising that, as prominent members of the Manchester business community, the Close and Brooks families should have become known to each other and they became friends.  In 1844 Anne Brooks (1821), the daughter of Samuel was suffering from bronchitis and needed to escape from the cold and damp of the Manchester winter.  Samuel Brooks (1793) thought it would be an excellent idea for her to go out to Naples with its warm and sunny climate to stay with James Close (1799).  Anne and her younger sister Alice (1822) were sent out together.  In spite of the 22 year difference in their ages, Anne and James fell in love.  They approached Samuel for his permission to marry but he was initially reluctant to sanction the relationship.  However, he finally relented and the couple were married in Naples in 1845.

Between 1846 and 1859 James (1799) and Anne Close (1821) had a family of 8, 5 boys and 3 girls.  All of their children were endowed with the second given name “Brooks”.  The couple were clearly proud that they had formed a link between two such successful and prominent families.  From 1851 the schooner Sibilla frequently became James Close's (1799) and his family's travelling home as they sailed around the Mediterranean.  It was on this ship that he put his educational philosophy into practice, both parents and imported tutors giving instruction, mostly in subjects of practical usefulness.  All the Close children learned to be agile, self-reliant and fearless, frequently being up in the rigging or out in small boats.  Anne (1821) displayed typical Brooks character, proving to be highly competent managing the family’s affairs, often in the absence of James, both on shore and on their extended voyages on Sibilla.  This allowed James to concentrate on his business affairs.  James progressively consolidated his banking activities and latterly, after the introduction of the electric telegraph about 1855, he managed his own wealth by issuing instructions remotely.

James Close (1799) – the exit from Naples

In 1859 King Ferdinand II died and was succeeded by the young and inexperienced King Francis II who lasted only a year before being deposed by Garibaldi, the creator of the Italian Republic. James Close (1799) was now 61 and had suffered from gout and rheumatism for some years.  It was time to consider retirement and, after evaluating Nice as a location, which was then gaining a strong and largely British expatriate community, he decided instead to buy land and build his own house in nearby Antibes, at that stage an undeveloped town.  The Close family finally left Naples in 1864.  James Close (1799) could not pass on his business to his sons, because they were still too young, he having had most of his children rather late in life. When James finally retired, his and Anne’s sons’ ages were, John (1850) 14, James (1851) 13, William (1853) 11, Frederick (1854) 10 and Thomas (1859) 5. James Close (1799) recorded in 1860 that Samuel Brooks (1793) had made a commitment to find a position for John Brooks Close (1850) in the Manchester bank, a fateful promise for both John and for Cunliffes, Brooks and Co.  That commitment was subsequently honoured by William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) after the death of his father, Samuel, in 1864.

Antibes

The area of land bought in Antibes was registered in the name of Anne Close (1821) and it is likely that she used the inheritance of £100,000 she had just received from the estate of her father to effect the purchase.  Construction of the Villa Antipolis (the Greek name for Antibes) began in 1865 but, sadly, James Close (1799) died at the end of that year, leaving a personal estate of <£18,000 (<£2.1M in 2016 money).  Work on the building was suspended and it was many years before it was finally completed.  About 1870 another, more modest house, the Villa Closebrooks, was built at Antibes, probably designed by George Truefitt for his friend and client William Cunliffe Brooks (1819), Anne Close’s (1821) brother.  Some uncertainty about the architectural origins of the house exists, since a Close family member has suggested that it was built to a design by Anne.  Anne died in 1876, while seeking medical help for a health problem in Paris.

Henry Gaskell Close (1836)

James Close (1799) had 6 sons, one with his first wife Henrietta Hannah and 5 with his second wife, Anne.  Henry Gaskell Close (1836) the half-brother of Anne’s 5 sons was 14 years older than John Brooks Close (1850) the eldest of James’ second brood.  Henry Gaskell Close (1836) spent some years on Sibilla with his half-siblings before going up to Trinity College, Cambridge in July 1855, thus initiating the family tradition of attending that college.  He graduated BA in 1859 and MA in 1867 and was admitted to the Middle Temple in the same year, being called to the bar in 1871.  It appears that Henry did not practice as a barrister for most of his adult life, instead spending time managing the various properties that he occupied and acting as a JP.  He died in 1913 leaving a personal estate of £90,000 (>£9.2M in 2016 money).

The Boys of James and Anne Close

John Brooks Close (1850) entered Trinity College, Cambridge in 1868. His brothers James (1851) and William (1853) spent some time at prep school in Rutland.  They then attended Wellington College before proceeding to Trinity in 1870 and 1871 respectively.    Frederick (1854) also attended Wellington College but decided that academic study did not suit him and, instead of following his older brothers to Cambridge, asked that the money reserved for his university education be applied instead to buying a ranch in the United States.  To make up for his lack of agricultural experience he worked on a farm in Scotland before crossing the Atlantic in 1874.  When he departed from Liverpool the dockside porters tried to take this “toff” for a ride with their financial demands to carry his luggage.  This angered Frederick and he carried his own bags to the sound of their jeers.  Frederick rounded on them and retorted "I am going to make my fortune, not yours".  This summed up the attitude of the four oldest of Anne Close’s (1821) sons.  They were all self-confident and determined to achieve financial success.  Their self-belief was not mis-placed.  Sadly, her youngest boy, Thomas (1859) never had the opportunity to show his mettle.  He died tragically in an accident at school in Switzerland, when he was overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning.

The three boys who went up to Trinity College Cambridge, John (1850), James (1851) and William (1853) all pursued ordinary degrees but all had outstanding achievements as oarsmen.  John rowed in the Cambridge boat that beat Oxford in both 1871 and 1872 and in the University fours (twice), besides rowing Head of the River for Trinity.  At Henley he won the Diamond Sculls, the Grand Challenge Cup (twice) and the Steward's cup (twice).  James rowed in the Cambridge boat against Oxford in 1872, 1873 and 1874.  William rowed in the Cambridge boat in the University boat race in 1875, 1876 and 1877.  Although Frederick did not attend university he too was a superb athlete.  His uncle William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) once offered him a billiard table if he could walk all round it on his hands.  He took up the challenge and achieved the objective easily.  Clearly the early introduction and long exposure to life at sea on Sibilla had a positive and lasting effect on the Close boys.

Cunliffes, Brooks and Co and the Close Boys

William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) offered positions at Cunliffes, Brooks and Co bank to John (1850), James (1851) and William Close (1853).  John and James accepted, entering the bank on going down from Cambridge, but William declined the opportunity.  As noted earlier, John soon found himself in day to day control of the Manchester headquarters of the bank and, in effect, stayed there for the whole of his working life.  James was working at the bank in Manchester in 1867 at the time of Anne Close’s (1821) death.  He was put in charge of the bank’s interests in West Africa.  By 1878 he had been posted back to Blackburn but soon left to join his brothers Frederick (1854) and William (1853) in their ventures in the United States.

John Brooks Close (1850)

In 1874 John Brooks Close (1850) married his cousin, Emily (1854), the daughter of the late Rev John Brooks (1823), formerly vicar of Walton le Dale.  John Brooks Close (1850) lived in Eccles and travelled to the Manchester bank each day by horse-drawn tramcar.  The operators, Manchester Carriage and Tramway Company frequently irritated John Close by admitting extra passengers above the number stipulated by regulation.  He complained to the company but got nowhere so, at his insistence, the company was summoned to appear in Court.  They admitted the offence and were fined 10 shillings with costs.  However, the actions of John Brooks Close (1850) looked officious and inflexible when it turned out that the 2 extra passengers that he complained about were a woman and a small child picked up on a rainy day.  A more noble side of John’s personality was demonstrated in 1886, when he was out riding near Manchester race course one Sunday morning.  He heard the screams of some women standing on the bank of the river Irwell and rode over to find that a boy had fallen in the water and was drowning.  John took off his coat and vest, entered the water and rescued the lad.  John wanted to continue his ride but the women surrounded his horse and would not let him leave until he told them his name.  He was subsequently honoured with the award of a testimonial from the Royal Humane Society for his brave actions.

By 1888 when John Brooks Close (1850) had assumed the additional surname of “Brooks”, he was a prominent member of civic society in Manchester, just as his uncle William (1819) and grandfather Samuel (1793) had been before him.  His status in society was now also clear from his occupation of Birtles Hall, Chelford, Cheshire, where in 1891 he and his family were tended by 8 servants.  In 1894 he was the Chairman and Treasurer of the committee that raised a testimonial to Malcolm Wood, the retiring Chief Constable of Manchester and in 1900 he was appointed Treasurer of the Blackburn Board of Guardians.

John Brooks Close Brooks (1850) suffered ill health from about 1912 and he finally left the Board of Lloyds in January 1914.  He had little time to enjoy his retirement since he died in March of the same year, aged 63.  His association with Cunliffes, Brooks and Co and subsequently Lloyds Bank had left him very wealthy, his personal effects being worth over £212,000 (>£22M in 2016 money).

John Brooks Close Brooks (1850) had 2 sons, John (1876) and Arthur (1884).  Both attended Trinity College Cambridge, like their father and Arthur rowed in the university boat for 2 years and was bow in the winning crew in 1907.  John became a member of the Manchester Stock Exchange but was killed in action at the Battle of Ypres in 1914.  Arthur became a cotton spinner but his demise was equally tragic.  He died of his wounds while serving in Mesopotamia in 1917.

James, William and Frederick Close move to America

In 1874 Frederick Close (1854) had taken over a small stock farm in the Allegheny Mountains.  William Close (1853) travelled to the United States in 1876 as a result of his rowing activities.  He was the president of the Cambridge University Boat Club and had led a crew to participate in the Centennial Regatta. During his transatlantic sojourn he met an American, Daniel Paullin, who was on holiday with his son and daughter, Mary.  He told William that he had made a fortune in the 1860s buying land in Illinois and then selling it on.  He had now made his home there, in the town of Quincy.  Daniel Paullin planned to give his sons the same opportunity in the nearby state of Iowa and he invited William to join him on a reconnaissance of the area.  William accepted the offer, being attracted by the idea of a profitable venture and also by Paullin’s daughter, Mary, whom he later married.

William (1853) travelled to meet up with Frederick (1854) and they jointly discussed plans for buying up land and then selling it on to settlers, as Daniel Paullin had done.  But that plan changed into one which involved buying up virgin prairie land and developing it into farm land before renting it out.  William’s business plan predicted a rate of return of 15% to 35%, far higher than could be obtained from the 4% or 5% achievable from investment in agricultural land in England.  William and Frederick travelled back to England but re-crossed the Atlantic in May 1877, intent on buying up land with good potential.  They ended up purchasing about 2,500 acres of prairie land in west Iowa, with good potential since it was covered with up to 10ft of topsoil.

The Close Brothers’ American Businesses

William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) heard about the plans of William Brooks Close (1853) and wrote to him expressing interest in his ideas, probably sensing an opportunity for his bank to make loans.  He also indicated to William that his brother James (1851) might come out to join him and, in 1878, the three Close brothers, James, William and Frederick (1854), were reunited in the United States.  Later that year the brothers discovered 14,600 acres of land with great potential near Sioux City, Iowa and paid a deposit on it.  The next payment was due in a year, giving them time to raise finance back in the United Kingdom.  Back in London, William Brooks Close (1853) established the firm of Close Brothers as a land agency with offices in Le Mars, Iowa, London and Manchester.  James (1851) was in charge of the Le Mars office and in 1880 Frederick (1854) joined the partnership.  This momentous event was the origin of Close Brothers that, by descent, has become Close Brothers Bank, which still operates in the City of London today.

Close Brothers advertised both for capital to be invested in land purchase and for young men of good education and with money to invest to go out to Iowa to train as farmers.  This was a time of growing agricultural depression in Great Britain as competition from imported agricultural produce increased its impact.  In a letter to the editor of the Manchester Courier in 1879, William Brooks Close (1853) wrote, “If there were no other reason, how can the English farmer who follows the old system of farming compete with the American with his labour-saving machinery?  No wonder that it costs some farmers here £3 to £4 per acre for mowing and haymaking in England.  Why, sir, it was only the other day passing through the midland counties that I saw rows of men mowing with scythes and rows of men turning the hay over with pitchforks. Such a sight I have never seen in America.”  By early 1880 £100,000 (>£11m in 2016 money) had been invested by new clients.

The business accelerated rapidly over the next 5 years and their Iowa Land Company became the largest foreign-owned company in America, with a capital value of $5.5M.  In 1884 the business started to evolve from land agency and land development company to that of bank. The Close brothers set up a farm loan business in Chicago to handle money they borrowed in England at 4% to 5%, realising 6.5% to 7% on their loans in America.  The Company acted prudently, as no loan exceeded 25% of the value of the land against which the loan was made.  The business then began to expand beyond farming, for example, the financing of a Colorado irrigation scheme.  They advertised debentures widely in the British press and by 1888 money was coming in at a rate which needed a separate company, the Mortgage and Debenture Company, to handle it.  The three Close brothers had, indeed, made their fortune and in a remarkably short space of time.

Death of Frederick Close (1854)

In 1890 tragedy struck.  Frederick Close (1854), in the style typical of the risk-taking Close brothers, was participating in a Polo match in Sioux City, while still nursing an arm injured when out fox hunting.  His adventurous riding caused a collision with two other horses, both of which fell and rolled over him.  He was critically injured and lingered on for a while, but died without regaining consciousness.  His personal estate was £2,742 (>£318,000 in 2016 money).

Agricultural Depression

Nothing stays the same for ever.  At the end of the 1880s and throughout the 1890s there was a financial depression in America accompanied by droughts and grasshopper plagues.  In these difficult conditions the collaboration between the remaining brothers, William (1853) and James (1851) terminated.  William Brooks Close (1853) retained control of Close Brothers but spent more time in England.  James Close (1851) and his wife returned to England, where he joined Lloyds Bank, perhaps using the influence of his brother John, becoming the manager of their branch in Malvern, though he remained a partner in Close Brothers.

James Close (1851) and the return to England

Back in England, James (1851) was able to indulge his interest in rowing and from 1891 to 1893 he coached crews at Trinity and St Johns Colleges, Cambridge. All was not well with Cambridge rowing as it was a period of Oxford dominance.  In 1894 James Close (1851) was elected President of the Cambridge University Boat Club by a large majority and with a remit to turn around their fortunes.  There was dissatisfaction that the best rowers were not being selected out of favouritism to students from certain schools where rowing was taught.  He ensured that the best crews were selected.  The involvement with Cambridge rowing continued until 1899 when he left to “take up residence abroad”.  Whatever this foreign residence was, it did not last for long.  In 1900 he was back at the University coaching the Cambridge Boat Race crew.  After this time James dropped from public sight.  In 1909 he appears still to have been the manager of the Lloyds branch in Malvern but in the following year he died suddenly in Margate.  There appears not to have been any obituary published in the press, which is perhaps surprising for someone who had achieved so much.  Remarkably, he also seems to have retained little of his wealth from former years.  When probate was granted, the value of his effects was under £3,000 (<£320,000 in 2016 money).

Close Brothers and the White Horse Pass Railway

The depression in America had put a stop to Close Brothers’ activities in agricultural loans and land development but in 1896 the discovery of gold on the banks of the river Klondike in the Yukon Territory of north western Canada sparked a gold rush, which presented a different opportunity to make money.  Access to this remote area for both men and materials was difficult due to cold, lack of infrastructure and mountainous terrain.  In 1897 William Close (1853), contrary to legal advice, paid £10,000 (£1.2M in 2016 money) for the right to build a railway from the port of Skagway in Alaska, over the treacherous White Horse Pass into the Yukon.  This was a very risky venture.  The White Horse Pass and Yukon Railway Company Ltd was created to raise the capital necessary for construction and the company advertised widely in the British press.  The engineering challenges were enormous and the eventual capital cost was more than $7.5M.  The project was profitable and eventually the mortgage was repaid but many years after the gold rush, the original reason for construction, had ended.

Close Brothers Ltd

In 1909 Close Brothers admitted two new partners, Mr Stevens and Mr Cushing and the business was transferred to a private company registered in London.  In the same year the American business was incorporated and registered in Chicago.  It became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the London business.  Close Brothers Ltd moved to new premises at 17 St Helens Place in the City of London, where it also developed its business servicing the financial needs of wealthy clients.  William Brooks Close (1853), like his brother James was now able to indulge his interest in rowing, kindled in his student days at Cambridge.  He built a substantial house, Huntercombe Manor, near Henley, the centre of British rowing, so that he could be involved with the rowing community.  William died on the Isle of Wight at the house of his mistress in 1923, leaving a personal estate of £129,119 (>£6.6M in 2016 money).  Close Brothers was the subject of a management buy-out in 1978 and in 1984 it was listed on the London Stock Exchange.  Today it is a leading merchant bank with a market capitalisation of >£2.6B.

The Cunliffe Family and Banking in London – Roger Cunliffe (1794) and his Bank

Returning to the Cunliffe family and their banking activities, it was noted that Roger Cunliffe (1794) had been despatched to London about 1816, possibly to act as an agent for the Blackburn bank of Cunliffes, Brooks and Co.  This date is credible since the following year he married Sarah Shrubsole, the 21 year old daughter of William Shrubsole.  William was an interesting character.  He started his working life as a shipwright but in 1785 moved to the Bank of England as a clerk.  Within the Bank his career progressed until he became Secretary to the Bank’s Treasury Committee.  Outside his life at the Bank, William Shrubsole founded and was both director and secretary of the London Missionary Society.  He was also a noted composer of hymns.  It is presumed that Roger Cunliffe (1794) became acquainted with Sarah through his dealings with her father at the Bank of England.  Although Roger Cunliffe (1794) remained a partner in the Blackburn bank until 1835, when he terminated his partnership, the bank which he headed in London always seems to have traded under his name and until at least 1852 was located at the same address, 24 Bucklersbury.  The Blackburn bank opened its own branch at 29 Lombard Street at least by 1824 and this traded separately from Roger Cunliffe under the name of Cunliffes, Brooks, Cunliffe and Co.  The reason for these two separate banks both involving Roger Cunliffe (1794) is presently mysterious.   It has been suggested by another author that the two banks merged their activities in 1827 under the name of Cunliffes, Brooks Cunliffe and Co, only to split again in 1836.  This hypothesis seems highly unlikely since the Roger Cunliffe and the Cunliffes, Brooks, Cunliffe and Co (or similar variants of that name) banks were regularly referred to throughout the period by their separate names, for example in court cases, newspaper articles and business directories.  The separate addresses were also maintained.  Only a single observation of “Cunliffe and Brooks, Bucklersbury” has been found and that was in the Morning Post in 1835.  Nineteenth Century newspapers, as with contemporary media outlets, were not always noted for the accuracy of their reporting!

Tracing the activities of Roger Cunliffe (1794) and his bank of the same name is greatly helped by the stability of Roger’s home address (“Highbury Place, Islington” at least from 1831 and known to be number 21 at least from 1836), work address (“Bucklersbury” from at least 1817 and known to be number 24 from at least 1836) and bank name (“Roger Cunliffe jun and Co” to 1822, when his uncle Roger (1767) died, “Roger Cunliffe and Co” to about 1852 and “Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co” from about 1853) until his death in 1863.  As was indicated earlier, disentangling the affairs of the banking Cunliffes in London is complicated by the penchant of the family to call sons “Roger” and this tendency applied both to the branch of the Cunliffes flowing from Roger (1794) and from his brother, James (1792).  Over this and the next 2 generations there were 4 “Roger Cunliffes”, all bankers.

Roger Cunliffe (1794), in addition to his banking activities and his directorship of the Manchester and Leeds Railway, rapidly became involved in many aspects of the life of the capital.  He was a leading member of the Congregationalist Union Chapel of Highbury and Islington and in 1836 he joined the Committee of Dissenting Deputies which was appointed to protect the civil rights of the three denominations of Protestant Dissenters, which included the Congregationalists and the Baptists.  After his death in 1863 the Chapel acknowledged that he had been a “very liberal contributor” to all its charitable activities.   Roger Cunliffe (1794) was also a strong supporter of the London Missionary Society which had been founded by his father in law.  For example, Roger made donations towards special missions that the LMS made to China in 1843 and to Madagascar in 1862.  Charities that Roger Cunliffe supported included the distressed hand-loom weavers of Paisley, the Orphan Working School, the relief of distress at Holmfirth in Yorkshire in 1852 when a reservoir burst killing 81 people and putting about 6,000 out of work and the London Hospital.  He was also actively involved in several important campaigns, including the movement to repeal the Corn Laws, the cleaning up of the Thames, the promotion of the Great Exhibition of 1851, the proposal to create Finsbury Park and the 1853 public declaration by the Merchants Bankers and Trades of London to the people of France that England did not harbour unfriendly feelings towards the French.  Politically he was a Liberal and promoted the election of engineer Sir Morgan Peto as MP for Finsbury in 1859, the campaign being marked by much violence and disruption at the meetings addressed by Peto.  At his death in 1864, Roger Cunliffe’s personal estate was <£120,000 (<£13.7M in 2016 money). 

The Family of Roger Cunliffe (1794)

Roger Cunliffe (1794) and his wife, Sarah, had a family of 6 girls and 2 boys between 1821 and 1840, though one girl did not survive to adulthood.  The two boys, Roger (1822) and Edward Shrubsole (1832) both took up banking with the family firm, which became known as “Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co”.  When Roger Cunliffe (1794) died he granted £10,000 to each of his surviving daughters and an immediate £4,000 to each son in his will, with the balance of his estate being divided equally between the two men.

Roger Cunliffe’s (1794) younger son Edward Shrubsole Cunliffe had a successful career in the family firm, retiring in 1883 at the age of 61.  He was granted the Freedom of the City of London in 1869.  Edward married twice and had a family of 3 boys and 3 girls with his first wife, but none of his sons followed him into the banking profession.  He lived in Hove in retirement and died there in 1905.  At the time of his death his personal estate was £48,501 (>£5.3M in 2016 money).

Roger Cunliffe (1822) and Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co

Roger Cunliffe (1822), the older son of Roger Cunliffe (1794) was clearly destined for a leading role in the family bank.  From 1847 he acted in concert with his father on many matters, such as donations to charitable causes and it is likely that this marks the time when he was admitted to the partnership.  By 1853 he was certainly a partner and a Mr Bartlett had been brought in as a third member of the managing team.  The main leisure activity of Roger Cunliffe (1822) appears to have been gardening.  About 1864, after the death of his father he moved from Leyton in Essex to a large house, Stoneleigh, in the village of Rusthall near Tonbridge Wells, where he employed a head gardener of some skill.  Prizes were regularly won by entries from Stoneleigh at local horticultural shows.  Roger Cunliffe (1822) was also appointed as a magistrate and sat at Ilford.  In 1848 he married Maryann Robison and they had a family of 7, including 3 boys, the oldest of whom was, inevitably, called Roger (1855) and, equally inevitably, he became a banker in the family firm.  In 1881 Mr Bartlett retired from the partnership at Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co and Roger Cunliffe (1855) was admitted in his place.  Two years later Edward Shrubsole Cunliffe retired and he was replaced by JB Heath.  Roger Cunliffe (1822) died at Stoneleigh in 1891 and was buried in Rusthill Churchyard.  His personal estate was £70,159 (>£8.1M in 2016 money).  In his will, Roger Cunliffe (1822) made provision for his daughters before leaving the residue of his estate to his son Roger (1855).  His executors were his eldest son, Roger (1855) and his nephew Benjamin Franklin Smith.  Of Roger Cunliffe’s (1822) other two sons, Charles Morley Cunliffe (1858) died at the age of 26 at Davos Platz, which suggests he may have suffered from a chest complaint, such as tuberculosis, since this village was a winter refuge for those with pulmonary illnesses in the late 19^th century.  William Shrubsole Cunliffe (1860) was still alive at the time of his father’s death but was not favoured in his will.  He apparently trained as a doctor but may not have practised.  He too died young in St Helier, Jersey in 1895, leaving a personal estate of £11,096 (>£1.3M in 2016 money).

Roger Cunliffe (1855) and Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co

Roger Cunliffe (1855) became the senior partner at Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co, the name being retained even though he was now the only Cunliffe partner.  Probably on receipt of his inheritance following the death of his father, Roger (1855) moved to Meopham Bank, Hildenborough, near Tonbridge Wells in Kent.  He was an active member of the local community, being a keen supporter of the local cricket team, a member of the local lodge of Freemasons and very active in support of local good causes.  Shooting was one of his main pastimes but in 1894 he was hit in the left leg by the accidental discharge of a shotgun resulting in the amputation of 2 toes.  He had married Evelyn Duff Gordon in 1883 and they had a family of 2 boys and 2 girls.  Inevitably the older boy was called Roger (1887) and no doubt he was earmarked for a career at the bank from an early age.  However, in 1898 tragedy struck.  Roger (1887) was attending a school in Eastbourne.  On returning to school after the Christmas vacation he developed measles and influenza and died.  This must have been a stunning blow to the family and especially Roger’s (1855) plans for handing on the bank.  As it turned out he was the last Roger Cunliffe to lead Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co and, indeed, the last Cunliffe partner at the bank.  The younger son was named Gordon, probably derived from his mother’s maiden name.  His life and career are currently obscure and he was not named as a trustee of the will of his father.  Roger Cunliffe (1855), perhaps because of the tragic loss of his older son, moved home to the vicinity of Horsham.  He lived there until his death in 1922 and appears to have travelled a lot in this part of his life.  He was buried at Hildenborough Churchyard, indicating perhaps that the area around Tonbridge Wells was his spiritual home.  In addition to leading Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co, Roger Cunliffe (1855) had also been a director of Equitable Life Assurance.  His personal estate at death was £287,622 (>£12.6M in 2016 money).

The end of Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co

The bank continued, successfully, under the name of Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co throughout the 1920s and 1930s, but under non-Cunliffe management.  In 1941 the bank merged with Cater Brightwen and Co Ltd.  At the time they were the 2 biggest private discount houses in the City.  Because of the War, the financial authorities seem to have encouraged the merger, wanting to achieve financial strength and stability.  At the time of the merger Cater Brightwen was capitalised at £630,000 (>£31.8M in 2016 money) and Roger Cunliffe at £500,000 (>£25.2M in 2016 money), both fully paid-up.  Three of the partners from Roger Cunliffe, Sons and Co joined the board of Cater Brightwen.  The merger led to the erasure of this long standing (founded 1819) financial institution and with it, the loss of the Cunliffe name.

The Family of James Cunliffe (1792) and Cunliffes and Co

Returning to James Cunliffe (1792), who was the last Cunliffe partner in Cunliffes, Brooks and Co, a branch of this Blackburn bank was established in London about 1822, at 26 Lombard Street. It is likely that James was involved in the management of the London branch of the bank from its earliest days.  The clues come from his marriage.  James married Mary Ostle, a native of North Shields, in 1823 at Tynemouth in Northumberland.  What connection could there be between North Shields and Blackburn or London?  Mary was the daughter of John Ostle, a prominent and wealthy citizen and businessman in the marine trade on the Tyne.  John Ostle held the Newcastle-upon-Tyne civic position of Sergeant of the Water, the ancient name for water bailiff, for many years.  He was also a ship owner and ship’s master and involved in the carriage of freight and passengers to and from London.  In 1826 John Ostle was the commander of the brig Elizabeth which was lying in the London Dock.  The agent for the vessel was John Pirie whose office was at Freemans Court, Cornhill, in the City.  Thus it is probable that John Ostle was using banking services available in the City of London and this is a likely route by which John Ostle and James Cunliffe (1792) became acquainted and, through John Ostle, this could have extended to his daughter Mary.  James moved permanently to London in 1834.  James Cunliffe (1792) and his wife Mary had a family of 7, consisting of 3 boys and 4 girls.  The boys, Roger (1824), John (1825) and Henry (1827), were the first 3 children to be born and all were delivered in Blackburn, as was the first girl.  The last two girls were born in London.  The London bank that James headed was clearly successful as evidenced by his lifestyle.  In 1851 he was living at 1 Upper Hyde Park and the family was tended by 3 servants.  At the time of the Holmfirth disaster in 1852 he donated the substantial sum of £100 (£12,600 in 2016 money) to the relief fund.  James Cunliffe (1792) wrote his will in 1853, a year before he died.  It was composed with long and detailed instructions to his executors on investment strategy and other matters.  Again there are indications that he was living an elevated life style.  He bequeathed his grand piano and a collection of ornaments “brought from Italy” to his daughter Sarah (1836) and his Port wine collection to his son Roger (1824).  James Cunliffe’s (1792) personal estate (value not presently known) was left in equal shares to his 3 sons but houses he owned in Blackburn were left solely to son Roger.

Alexanders, Cunliffe and Co

In late 1863 just before the merger, Alexanders were based at 40 Lombard Street, while Cunliffes and Co were at number 24.  After the merger, which took place on 1 January 1864, business was conducted from both locations until 15 January, when it became exclusively located at 24 Lombard Street.  At the same time, the merged firm were having new premises erected at 30 and 31 Lombard Street.  The Birmingham Daily Gazette commented, “The amalgamation of two houses so highly respected will doubtless give the united firm a still more important position in the monetary market.”  The merged operation lasted until 1877 when it was dissolved.  Alexanders continued in business under the style of Alexanders and Co, while Roger Cunliffe, John Cunliffe and another partner, William Fowler, joined the board of the National Discount Company.  They were rewarded with the granting of 9,333 shares in the NDC, deemed to be paid up at a price of £5!

Henry Cunliffe (1827)

James Cunliffe’s (1792) 3 sons all joined Cunliffes and Co and pursued careers as bankers, though exact joining dates are not known.  However, in the Census of 1851, both Roger (1824) and John (1825) were described as bankers and in the next census in 1861, Henry (1827) also had that description.  The banking career of Henry was relatively short, as he resigned from the partnership and retired from banking in 1863. This was before the merger of Alexanders with Cunliffes and Co.   Henry was 36 at the time.  Also in 1863, Henry married Ann Crighton, the niece of his mother, through her sister, Sarah.  Ann’s father William Crighton was a solicitor in the firm of Griffith and Crighton, North Shields.  Henry and his wife subsequently lived at Hove and Brighton.  They only had one child, Mary (1867).  Henry appears to have spent his retirement enjoying his wealth and he died at the age of 56 while staying in Homburg, Germany.  At death, his personal estate was valued at just over £278,000 (>£30.3M in 2016 money).

John Cunliffe (1825)

John Cunliffe (1825) married Mary Herschel, a daughter of Rev Ridley H Herschel, a converted Jew, who was very active in church and charitable matters and a frequent lecturer in London.  The Herschels lived at Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park, near to the Cunliffe’s abode in Upper Hyde Park Street.  Sadly, for the couple, they were childless.    On the other hand, John Cunliffe’s (1825) banking career was long and successful.  He was a partner in Cunliffes and Co in or before 1851 and became a partner in Alexanders, Cunliffe and Co in 1864.  From 1867 he was a member of the Board of the National Discount Company Ltd until he retired sometime between 1881 and 1891.  In 1851 he and his wife were living in his father’s house at 1 Upper Hyde Park Street and they were still there in 1861, even though his father had died in the interim.  In 1871 John and Mary had moved to 2 Lancaster Gate and they remained there until John’s death in 1893.  Typically they were tended by 5 servants, with whom they seemed to have good relationships.  When John died he left significant legacies to most of his staff.  By his will John bequeathed £20,000 to each son of his brother, Roger (1824) and £10,000 to each of Roger’s daughters.  The residue of his estate was left, hopefully, to his own children but they never materialised.  Because of the failure of this trust the estate residue passed to his brother Roger (1824).  The amount must have been a substantial sum since John’s personal effects were sworn at over £637,000 (>£73.9M in 2016 money).

Roger Cunliffe (1824)

Roger Cunliffe (1824) reached his majority in 1845. About that time and possibly immediately after William Brooks (1763), the joint founder with his relative Roger Cunliffe (1767), of the original Cunliffe and Brooks bank in Blackburn, died he had been refused a partnership.  This was a possible reason why Cunliffes and Co was formed out of the London branch of the original Blackburn bank by about 1864.  After his father’s death in 1854, Roger (1824) became senior partner in London.  Like his younger brother John 1825), he had a long career with the bank, through the merger with Alexanders and afterwards with the move to the National Discounting Company Ltd.  He also seems to have worked independently as a bill-broker following the demerger from Alexanders.  In September 1852, Roger married Ann Edge, the daughter of a merchant from Rusholm, Manchester.  They had a family of 6, 4 boys and 2 girls, thus providing the seed-corn for banking to be taken up by the next generation of Cunliffes.  In a deviation from standard family practice, the oldest son in this next generation was called “Walter” (1855), not “Roger”.  But he still became a banker and a particularly eminent one at that.  Roger Cunliffe (1824) was a Justice of the Peace for Surrey and politically he supported the Conservatives.  At least from 1871 he and his family lived near to Leatherhead, firstly at Fetcham and then at Tyrrells Wood. At the 1881 Census he and his family were staying, probably temporarily, at Heathercliffe House, Christchurch, Hampshire, by which time Roger had retired from banking.  He died at Tyrrells Wood in 1895.  Roger Cunliffe (1824) had become very wealthy.  The net value of his assets at death was over £1,184,000 (<139.7M in 2016 money).  He bequeathed £100,000 to each of Arthur (1857) and Alan Percy Cunliffe (1864) and £80,000 to Leonard Daneham Cunliffe (1860).  Tyrrells Wood with its contents was left to his wife Ann during her widowhood, along with the income from £100,000, the capital of which was left to his 4 sons in equal shares.  All his other real estate, including Headley Court in Surrey and the contents of its Manor House, were left to senior son, Walter (1855).  His house in Queens Gate, Kensington was left to son Arthur (1857).  Money was also left in trust for his daughters, Mary Esther (1854) and Ethel Kate (1868).  The residue of Roger Cunliffe’s (1824) property was left in trust for his 4 sons equally. 

Arthur Cunliffe (1857)

Arthur Cunliffe (1857) never married.  In 1891 he was described as a stockbroker agent but following his father’s death he seems to have spent his time living with his mother either at Tyrrells Wood or at Queens Gate.  Although one source names him as a partner in a banking venture started by his brothers Walter (1855) and Leonard Daneham (1860) in 1890, other evidence suggests that he was not involved.  He was certainly responsible for managing some of the property in the family’s possession but was probably a gentleman of leisure.  His passion appears to have been horses driven in harness.  In one frantic period between 1902 and 1903 he appeared at many agricultural and horse shows all around London, including in Oxfordshire and East Anglia, but mainly in Surrey and Sussex, driving his beloved geldings, with names such as “Sam Weller”, “Gentleman of Quality” and “Buckingham Gentleman”, either singly or in pairs.  He was a frequent prize-winner and his horses were sometime driven by his sister, Ethel Kate (1868).  However, this activity seemed to stop abruptly after 1903.  His mother, Ann, died in 1912 at Tyrrells Wood, leaving effects valued at almost £5,000 (£530,000 in 2016 money).  Thereafter, Arthur lived at Queens Gate, until he died in 1924 at the Pump Room Hotel, Bath, leaving personal estate of >£225,000 (>£12.3M in 2016 money).

Alan Percy Cunliffe (1864)

Alan Percy Cunliffe (1864) was sent to Harrow School, followed by Trinity College, Cambridge.  Almost certainly, his father wished him to become a banker but Alan chose a quite different path in life.  His passion was horse racing and he became a well-known member of the fraternity surrounding the “sport of kings”, winning his first flat race in 1898.  Alan Cunliffe was a director of Sandown Park racecourse.  He had secretive training stables at Druid’s Lodge, Netheravon, Wiltshire and he and his friends were responsible for a number of betting coups over the years.  He won the “Jubilee” Handicap at Kempton Park in 1903 and 1904 with “Ypsilanti”, the Oaks with Charlebelle in 1920 and his horse “Charles O’Malley” came 3^rd in the Derby at Epsom in 1910. But his most famous win was in the Derby 3 years later, the 1913 race being described as the most sensational ever.  Members of the Royal Family normally attend the meeting and have a horse entered in the race.  The Derby meeting at Epsom was as much an upper class society “occasion” as it was a horseracing festival and, as such, was an ideal target for a demonstration by the Suffragettes, whose actions were becoming increasingly extreme, due to a lack of progress in achieving their aim of universal suffrage.  At Tattenham Corner towards the end of the race, Emily Wilding Davidson deliberately ran in front the King’s horse “Anmer” which was lying 3^rd last.  The horse crashed into her, falling and unseating its jockey.  Emily Davidson was thrown violently into the air and sustained critical injuries from which she died 4 days later.  The race was also sensational for another reason.  The horse which was first past the post, the favourite, “Craganour”, was disqualified for jostling and the race awarded instead to the 100:1 outsider, Alan Percy Cunliffe’s “Aboyeur”!  Alan Cunliffe remained unmarried for most of his life but when he entered the matrimonial stakes it too was a sensational match.  In 1940 at the age of 76 he wed the American film actress, Malvina Longfellow.  In her heyday between 1910 and 1930 she starred in many films and was a renowned beauty.  At the time of her marriage to Alan Cunliffe she was 51.  Alan Cunliffe did not long survive the married state as he died in 1942, leaving a personal estate of £154,669 (>£7M in 2016 money). In addition to his horse racing income, Alan Percy Cunliffe owned much of the land on Salisbury Plain which he rented to the Army for its training activities. 

Leonard Daneham Cunliffe (1860)  

Leonard Daneham Cunliffe (1860) attended preparatory school in Brighton, followed by Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge University, from where he graduated in 1882.  In 1890 he joined with his brother Walter (1855) in founding the merchant banking firm of Cunliffe Brothers, from which he retired in 1912.  He acquired 3 significant residences, Juniper Hall, Mickleham, Dorking, which he bought in 1898, Trelissick, Truro (let in 1913 and acquired in 1918) and 109 Eaton Square, London.  His banking career was hugely successful.  In due course he was Deputy Governor of the Bank of England (1914 – 1916), a director of the Hudson Bay Company (1907 – 1931), a director of Harrods and a major investor in the store.  Politically he was a supporter of the Conservative Party and a member of the Primrose League.  Leonard Daneham Cunliffe did not marry until 1898, when he wed a widow, Mrs Evelyn Fenzi.  Both were aged 48 at the time.  Evelyn had a daughter, Ida, from her previous marriage and Leonard adopted the girl.  She later became Conservative MP for Stoke. Leonard Cunliffe died in 1937 at Trelissick House, which he gifted to Ida.  It subsequently passed into the hands of the National Trust.  Leonard Daneham Cunliffe was buried in the family vault at Headley, Surrey.  During his life he had been a discerning and eclectic purchaser of antique objects, particularly porcelain and he bequeathed his collection to the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge on his death.  Leonard Cunliffe left a personal estate valued at over £948,000 (>£60.3M in 2016 money) in his will, on which he paid over £340,000 in estate duty.

Walter, Baron Cunliffe of Headley (1855)

Walter Cunliffe was born in 1855 and, like his brother Leonard (1860), attended Harrow School, followed by Trinity College, Cambridge, from which institution he graduated in 1878.  He was an outstanding athlete, being awarded his “blue” in 1876 and 1877 and winning the inter-varsity mile race.  In 1880, Walter was given the manor house and 300 acres of land at Headley, near Leatherhead, by his father on condition that he made his career in banking.  He entered the banking profession and in 1883 he joined with William Yeoman in the firm of Cunliffe Yeomans and Co.  This arrangement continued until 1890, when the firm was liquidated and Walter, his brother Leonard (1860) and possibly brother, Arthur (1857), joined to form the merchant bank of Cunliffe Brothers, which operated from White Lion Court, Cornhill in the City.  At the 1891 Census, Walter was described as a merchant banker and farmer and in 1898 he redeveloped Headley Court.  Walter quickly gained a high standing in the financial community and in 1895 he was elected a director of the Bank of England, which position he maintained for 16 years.  Subsequently, he ascended to the role of Deputy Governor in 1911 and Governor in 1913, serving with distinction throughout WW1.  He worked with 2 Chancellors of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George and Andrew Bonar Law.  In 1918, John Maynard Keynes, then an official in the Treasury, gave advice to Bonar Law with which Walter Cunliffe profoundly disagreed.  Cunliffe demanded that Bonar Law dismiss Keynes, but Bonar Law demurred and in consequence Cunliffe resigned his position.  Walter Cunliffe became a major funder and director of the North Eastern Railway in 1904 and in 1919 he also became a director of P and O.  In 1913 he was appointed Sheriff of the County of London and in 1914 he joined the Board of Arbitration for the Requisition of Ships.  Because of his work during WW1 in the stabilisation of the currency and the financing of the war effort, he was created Baron Cunliffe of Headley in the County of Surrey.  Many other honours followed, including foreign honours.  In 1915 he was appointed to the 1^st Class Order of St Anne (Russia).  The following year a flurry of honours descended on him, including the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE), the Legion d’Honeur (France) and the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun (Japan).  In 1918 the Cunliffe Committee reported on policy for the UK economy in the post-war period and in 1919 he headed a committee which evaluated the ability of the enemy states to pay war reparations.  His work on this committee got across another prominent politician, Winston Churchill.  Cunliffe’s calculation that the UK’s defeated adversaries could afford to pay £24B (>£1.2T in 2016 money) in war reparations was described by Churchill as “monstrous and fantastic”. 

Walter Cunliffe (1855) married Mary Henderson in 1890, but she died in 1893.  He married for a second time to Edith Boothby in 1896 and together they had a family of 3 sons and 3 daughters.  His son, Maurice (1903) died in childhood and his son, Geoffrey (1904) did not follow a career in banking.  Rolf Cunliffe (1899), his eldest son assumed the title of Baron Cunliffe in 1920, at the age of 21. In his later years Walter Cunliffe developed a passion for fishing, big game hunting and travel to remote regions of the world.

Rolf Cunliffe (1899) and the end of Cunliffe Brothers

Cunliffe Brothers merchant bank continued to operate throughout the period that Walter Cunliffe (1855) was distracted by the war effort but in 1920 he arranged for the business to be merged with that of Fruhling and Goschen, which had been formed in 1814, to be known under the style of Goschens and Cunliffe as merchant and foreign bankers.  The Goschen family, like the Cunliffes, was of high standing in financial circles.  Sadly, Walter Cunliffe died shortly after becoming a partner in Goschens and Cunliffe in 1920.  He was taken ill before attending a business dinner and expired rapidly due to septicaemia.  He was 74 and his personal estate amounted to over £650,000 (>£30.2M in 2016 money), all his property being placed in trust for his wife and children.  Rolf Cunliffe (1899) lived at Headley Court and became a full partner of Goschens and Cunliffe in 1925, remaining in that position for some years.  In 1939 Goschens and Cunliffe was running out of steam due to the age of the principals.  Lord Goschen, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1888, had been a sleeping partner for many years and Sir William Goschen had served for 45 years.  They decided to merge the business and goodwill of the firm with that of Guinnes, Mahon and Co, the name of Cunliffe thus disappearing from the title of the bank.  In 1935 Rolf Cunliffe became a director of London Assurance but it is not clear if he was still a partner in Goschens and Cunliffe at this time.

Rolf Cunliffe (1899), though a banker and the last in the long line of Cunliffe bankers, had other interests.  During WW1 and immediately afterwards, from 1917 to 1920, he had served in the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Air Force.  In the inter-war period he served in the RAFVR.  Miss Joan Lubbock became his wife in 1925 and they had a family of 3 girls and 1 boy, whose given name was Roger (1932).  However, this Roger Cunliffe (1932) became an architect and project manager.  Rolf Cunliffe, like several other Cunliffes over the years had a fascination with antique objects and in particular Chinese art works.  He became Honorary Keeper of Far East Collections at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.  Rolf Cunliffe was a member of the committee of the Surrey Convalescent Home and Chairman of the Court of Committees of Guys Hospital.  Rolf Cunliffe died in 1963 and left a personal estate of £266,952 (>£5.1M in 2016 money)  With this interest in good works in the medical field and his background in the RAF, it is perhaps fitting that Headley Court should subsequently have been sold to the Institute of Auctioneers and Estate Agents in 1947.  They, in turn, donated the house to the Government for the rehabilitation of RAF pilots and crews.  Its role in military rehabilitation continues to this day.

The Generation of Wealth

It is clear that many of the individuals from the Brooks, Close and Cunliffe families dealt with here became very wealthy as a result of their activities as bankers.  Quantifying that wealth is difficult because in most cases only the value of a personal estate is known.  However, several masters of wealth generation identify themselves.  Comparing these individuals is complex because of changing fiscal policy. Taxation of the estates of individuals, both real and personal has a long history but it was only after WW1 and especially after WW2 that the tax take became so significant that it caused individuals to explore means of avoidance.  These individuals also varied in the amount of wealth they inherited from their own parents.  However, the following individuals were particularly remarkable.  Using the value of personal estates, converted to the equivalent in 2016 money gives the following league table.  Roger Cunliffe (1824) - >139M, William Cunliffe Brooks (1819) - >£135M, John Cunliffe (1825) - >£73M, Leonard Daneham Cunliffe (1860) - >£60M, Henry Cunliffe (1827) - >£30M, Walter Cunliffe(1855) - >£30M, Samuel Brooks (1793) - >£28M, Roger Cunliffe (1767) - >£28M, John Brooks Close Brooks (1850) - >£22M, Roger Cunliffe (1794) - >£13M.  This league table has another complication and that is that individuals must have varied in the distribution of their total wealth between real estate and personal estate.  In the case of Samuel Brooks (1793) his total estate (in 2016 money) was worth about £285M of which only 10% was personal.  It would be wrong to see these fabulous sums as being simply the result of a drive for personal aggrandisement.  The bankers concerned must have contributed an enormous amount of value in growing the UK economy.

The Role of Wives and Mothers

Lady readers of this story may well conclude that it shows a strong bias towards male members of the three families.  This is readily admitted but can be justified by the way that society was organised during the period of time covered.  Men had careers and earned or created wealth while women had babies and looked after the home, or, in many cases above, commanded a gaggle of servants, devoted themselves to good works and looked decorative.  Also, the main purpose of the article is to follow the evolution and interactions of the bank principals and, where females made a distinct contribution to the purpose of the story, they have been included, for example Anne Close , nee Brooks (1821).  There is another purely practical reason.  The genealogy of these families is complex and reducing lateral diversions probably helps to bring out the gist of the story.  But there is a very important point to make about the unrelated ladies who entered these families as wives and mothers in each generation.  They made a 50% contribution to the genetic make-up of the offspring in the next generation but the practice of discarding the mother’s family name disguises this contribution.

Conclusion

It is remarkable that 3 such prominent banking families, containing so many talented individuals, should have emerged from the ferment of the Lancashire cotton industry in the late 18^th and 19^th centuries.  But is should not be a surprise that interactions occurred between them.  What is interesting is that the interaction between the Close and Brooks families, based on inter-marriage, proved to be more enduring than the interaction between the Brooks and Cunliffe families, based initially upon mutual respect but which did not endure.  As they say in the North of England, “Blood is thicker than water”!

Don Fox

20161014

donaldpfox@gmail.com