The present

Q. It is a joy and blessing to see you at the most events of Manchester Lit &Phil. What do you most hope to get from an evening at the Society now?

A. The convivial atmosphere engenders mutual aspirations to learn about relevant subjects and partake in lively dialogue.

 

Early Life and Formative Influences: From Cape Town to the United Kingdom

Q. Looking back to Cape Town: what early experiences or influences nudged you toward medicine in the first place?

A. From my early years I wished to become a doctor. I strove to acquire the criteria to enter medical school at the University of Cape Town. I held our family GP in high esteem. During my medical school years, I helped organise clinics for African and mixed-heritage communities who were disadvantaged under apartheid.

My first publication as a student was on the importance of psycho-somatic medicine.

During my training I was inspired by one of my Obstetrics teachers, David Friedlander who was visionary in encouraging husbands to support their wives in labour. During my residencies, I was inspired by the dedication and surgical skills of the Professor of Surgery – Jannie Louw, and the Professor of Gynaecology – James Louw. Professor of medicine – John Brock, opened vistas of the importance of social medicine, and RNA, and DNA, molecular biology.

My next appointment was in Infectious Diseases where I acquired much experience and clinical skills and hands-on involvement in the Polio epidemic of over 500 cases.

Cecile Hoberman and I got married when I was working at the Infectious Diseases Hospital. Cecile was an early career artist specializing in Portraiture and Sculpture.

My direction was towards Obstetrics and Gynaecology, but General Practice was the next step for me to broaden my horizons and confirm my aspirations to specialize in Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

I joined a Group General Practice in Stellenbosch, which was a rural University town, famous for its wine growing, near Cape Town. A vast clinical experience followed coupled with the responsibility of setting up a separate Maternity service in the hospital for the underprivileged non-white people. As a GP, I carried out a survey of undiagnosed sickle cell trait (Sickle cell trait: a family study and a report of three further cases of Sickle cell disease L. Anstey and M. Elstein S.A. Medical Journal, April 1960, p 282 -284)

Q. In 1961 you moved to London. What prompted that decision, and what were your first impressions of professional life in the United Kingdom?

A. We were distressed by the inequities of the Apartheid System. In my working life, I accosted this degrading system; life had become challenging. We decided we needed to leave South Africa. After our decision and informing my GP partners and family, a few weeks later, the historic Sharpeville massacre took place.

We emigrated to the UK in May 1961, which was timely as it enabled us to acquire British Citizenship by right as South Africa was leaving the Commonwealth at that time. Moving to the UK, presented an opportunity for me to follow my aspirations for a holistic approach to the broader aspects of Obstetrics and Gynaecology such as reproductive health care, the provision of contraception, sexuality and the potential of endocrinology.

My impressions of professional life in the UK were more aspirational than experiential. My brief exposure to the NHS as a GP locum was a ‘learning experience’. The opportunities for embarking on specialist training in the discipline I had chosen was inspirational. I set my sights on getting training posts in premier institutions where there was emphasis on academic discourse and research.

 

Clinical and Academic Career: What Mattered Most

Q. You held posts at Queen Charlotte’s, Hammersmith, and Charing Cross, and you also lectured. How did this period of your career unfold?

A. I was fortunate to obtain a post in Obstetrics, at Queen Charlotte’s – the premier hospital in Obstetrics, under Professor Jack Pinkerton. My appointment was extended to do research with Carl Wood, a pioneering researcher into Uterine Activity. I also did research at the Chelsea Hospital for Women on the endocrine vaginal cytology of newborn girls – resulting in a notable publication. At that time, I became involved in teaching for the membership of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).

My next post was at the postgraduate medical centre at the Hammersmith Hospital under Professor John Browne. I continued to teach on the course for the membership degree of the RCOG. I obtained Membership of the RCOG at that time.

In my Appointment as Registrar at Charing Cross Hospital, I became heavily involved in the teaching of students in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. I then became a lecturer in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for Professor Norman F Morris. My initial research was in management of labour. I then focused on contraception and obtained a fellowship of the RCOG to study the effects of progestogens on cervical mucus. This research resulted in my obtaining a Doctor of Medicine (MD) from the University of Cape Town (UCT).

Further research was on hormonal methods of contraception and intrauterine contraceptive devices.

During the sixties, I was able to extend the provision of contraceptive services irrespective of marital status. I pioneered the teaching of sexuality to medical students and doctors.

Q. What did you most enjoy about the balance between clinical practice and teaching?

A. My time at Charing Cross was busy clinically and in research, the most satisfying part was the creative rapport with the medical students.

Q. When you moved to the University of Southampton – first as Senior Lecturer, then as Reader – what were you seeking to build or explore academically?

A. Before we moved to Southampton, in 1970, I had a visiting Fellowship in Cape Town, this enabled me to defend my MD thesis. We had an extended tour of South Africa. I did a lecture tour presenting developments in oral conception. My family accompanied me on this eventful experience.

In 1970, the establishment of the new Medical School at the University of Southampton was an appealing challenge.

I was appointed as Senior Lecturer in Human Reproduction and Obstetrics to the Foundation Professor, David Millar. Within a few months, he developed cancer and died. I then took over the responsibility of planning and setting up the new curriculum. This entailed central allocation and subsequent peripheral location of the students throughout the Wessex region. The aspirations of the New Medical School were revolutionary and requested inspiring the NHS consultants to be involved.

Innovative teaching involved the establishment of early medical contact of the medical students during ante-natal care, in the delivery and subsequent development of the child.

The curriculum included the teaching of human sexuality, recognizing the broader aspects of human sexuality. This was extended to the GPs in the Wessex region. This resulted in seminal publications evaluating this teaching.

The postgraduate teaching of family planning was established; this formed the basis for the RCOG Faculty programme.

A major research project was established in women with intrauterine devices investigating the possible role of the IUD’s cervical appendage in the genesis of infection involving a clinical research fellow and a bacteriologist.

Research activities were extended by obtaining funding for the appointment of a lecturer in Reproductive Biochemistry.

I established a postgraduate teaching programme for RCOG Membership in the Wessex region.

Involvement in several clinical developments such as establishment of Day Case Surgery.

Q. In 1977 you came to the University of Manchester as Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. What was the challenge you were most eager to undertake here?

A. On my professorial appointment to the University of Manchester, I changed my title by adding “Reproductive Health Care “to Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

I introduced the teaching of sexuality in the early years of the medical curriculum.

The introductory clinical skills programme at the end of the 3rd year, for students about to commence placement in the region, was made obligatory. This programme presented the opportunity to teach medical ethics in collaboration with Professor John Harris and Professor Margot Brazier.

The establishment of the discipline of Family planning and Reproductive Health Care followed. The appointment of the first clinical Consultant/Senior Lecturer in Reproductive Health Care in the UK was enabled by obtaining funding from the postgraduate dean and the District Health Authority. Higher Training in Reproductive Health Care, recognised by the RCOG followed. Subsequently over 100 Consultant posts in the discipline of Reproductive Health Care have been established. The clinical challenges were improvement in Obstetric / Neonatal care in the Withington Hospital, provision of Abortion services, pelvic microsurgery for female infertility.

Q. Which of your research areas felt most urgent or exciting as they were unfolding: contraceptive development, endometriosis, fertility mechanisms, pelvic blood flow, assisted reproduction, patient safety, or something else?

A. All held a genuine interest for me. The most exciting, however, was the development of hormonal contraceptives and the refinement of their formulations. Of comparable importance was the role of the cervical appendage of the intrauterine contraceptive device in the transmission of pelvic infection.

Q. Of all your published work and clinical contributions, of which are you personally most proud, and why?

A. The enhancement of oral contraceptive formulations resulting in the reduction of the amount of hormone was significant with an improved level of acceptance.

Q. You have been involved in infertility care and reconstructive pelvic microsurgery. How did you approach the human side of that work: hope, disappointment, resilience alongside technical expertise?

A. Pelvic reconstructive surgery most often resulted in relief of pain and some achievement of pregnancy. The women who had chronic pelvic pain would affirm alleviation of the pain within days of their surgery which made the painstaking surgery and the preoperative preparation worthwhile. The surgery was often prolonged. I took tremendous pleasure in the fact that I could pass these skills onto my colleagues, which they applied in their practice thus helping even more women. Where surgery was unsuccessful, I would support women in accepting that hysterectomy was required entailing appropriate empathic management.

 

Medicine, Law, and Bioethics: The Institute Years (IMLAB)

Q. After retiring from St Mary’s in 1995, you became Executive Director of the Institute of Medicine, Law and Bioethics, an institution spanning several universities. What drew you to that role?

A. I was privileged to facilitate the teaching of medical ethics to medical students with John and Margot. From my experience in medicolegal practice and having served as a Council member of the Medical Defence Union, it was fitting to accept the invitation from Professor Martin Harris, particularly as it involved linking up with the teaching of ethics and medicolegal law in Liverpool. This joint venture, funded by the Regional Health Authority, allowed me to raise funds for research projects and staff in these areas in Manchester. My initial three-year half-time contract was extended to five years.

Q. Which ethical questions in reproductive health care have you found the most persistent or the most difficult, whether then or now?

A. One of the most difficult aspects of this work was challenging the entrenched views of some experts.

 

The Manchester Literary & Philosophical Society: Joining, Belonging, Contributing

Q. How did your first contact with the Manchester Lit & Phil come about? How did you discover the Society, and what persuaded you and Cecile to join?

A. I was initially approached on my appointment to become a member, but my responsibilities precluded me from taking this on, which I regretted. On my first retirement, Cecile and I decided that we wished to join, even though we had some heavy commitment in looking after our son, Paul. I was approached by some council members to become a member of Council, which I found rewarding.

Q. What did the Manchester Lit & Phil offer that you did not find in academic medicine or in the professional societies?

A. Cecile served initially as a member of the Arts Committee, which she found very rewarding. We found that the lectures which we attended broadened our horizons, which for me, were invaluable. When I was invited to serve on its Council, I wished the Society to become more in tune with the changes in society and to become more financially secure.

Q. You served as Vice-President and, later, as a Director from 2009 to 2014. How did you see the Society’s role within Manchester and beyond?

A. I recognised that the Society needed to extend its membership, particularly to younger people and to be more efficient. I welcomed the opportunity to chair Task and Finish groups on how this might be achieved. Despite the difficulties that the Society has faced before and during Covid, I am pleased to see that many of our recommendations have been implemented. The present management of the Society can open vistas of creative development. One area I would like to see reinstated is a thriving young people’s forum, which Professor Derek Crowther had initiated.

Q. Are there particular moments, talks, debates, or people at the Manchester Lit & Phil that you remember as especially significant?

A. The Dalton Lecture series is particularly memorable; my grandson Adam, whom the Society generously permitted to attend, valued it greatly. More opportunities for young teenagers to take part should be explored.

Memorable events reflect my bias and are the Discussion between Sir Mark Elder and Michael Kennedy and of course, Cecile’s presentation.

There are many more!

In particular, there have been many recent outstanding events in the rejuvenated Society!

Q. If you could capture the “spirit” of the Manchester Lit & Phil in a single sentence, what would it be?

A. The current involvement of volunteers, and their dedicated commitment is truly inspiring.

 

Family, Care, and Resilience

Q. How did you experience the relationship between your two worlds – medicine and reproductive health, and Cecile’s artistic practice? Was it one of contrast or of harmony?

A. I should like to answer this by sharing with you something Cecile said to me after we had discussed the very question: “What connects art to science is an abiding similarity between the artistic and the scientific mind; it is as if both were motivated by the pangs of discovery and a desire for the consummation of ideas into beautiful totalities.”

Q. Cecile’s practice ranged from sculpture and printmaking to environmental art, with a profound attention to empathy and to accessible environments. What do you think she most wished people to feel or to notice?

A. Many of Cecile’s works reflect upon the relationships between people. She espoused the following four guiding principles: awareness, respect, loyalty, and the desire to negotiate.

Q. You and Cecile cared for your son Paul through many years of illness. If you are comfortable sharing it, what did that period teach you about love, patience, and the limits or the strengths of medicine?

A. It was a privilege for us to look after and provide for our wonderful son, who was empathic, resilient to his sufferings and always had a sense of humour and related well to his carers and visitors who all felt enhanced by his presence. We learnt to cope with the erosion of our privacy because of the carers that Cecile managed with considerable skill and empathy for their needs as well as that of Paul. We enjoyed positive relationships with the carers.

Q. How has family life: your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren shaped your sense of meaning and continuity?

A. I feel truly blessed by the joy I have had, and continue to have, from my extended family.

Q. You and your daughter have been involved in preserving and sharing Cecile’s legacy. What forms does that work take: archiving, exhibitions, public artworks, talks, education?

A. Maureen, my daughter, responds:

“The Cecile Elstein Studio Team’s curatorial work offers fresh insights into Cecile Elstein’s creative practice, her spheres of influence and artists’ circles.

The Cecile Elstein Studio Team have been cataloguing and curating Cecile’s Studio. This includes her artwork, artefacts and the artwork’s provenance. Her artefacts include her studio notebooks and writings. Through this process we are discovering extraordinary insights into her creative practice.

This year, we have been talking to the Didsbury Arts Festival and hope to feature during the end of June 2026, Open House tours, Curators’ talks and Film screenings. Currently curatorial topics include: ‘Women at Work’, ‘Portraits of Medical Scientists’, ‘Print-making Innovation’, ‘Sculpture’, ‘Ceramics’, ‘Site-specific Installation Public Sculpture’, ‘Art as Environment’ ‘Empathy in Design Education’, ‘20 years of the Didsbury Drawing Group using the Philosophy of Non- Interference’, and ‘I and Thou – Relational Philosophy’.

In the future, we plan to hold a Retrospective Exhibition, alongside an Academic symposium, outreach workshops and book publication with gallery, museum and publisher partnerships.”

Q. What would you most like the public to understand about Cecile as an artist, something that a brief obituary or an exhibition label might overlook?

A. Cecile was an insightful, compassionate and understanding person, with an expansive love of humanity and the aesthetic. We enabled each other’s development. Throughout our life together, we wished to explore the broad spectrum of philosophy, literature and the arts and to facilitate its general availability in society.

 

The Future: Medical Science, the Life of the Society, and Counsel

Q. What do you believe the next generation of clinicians and researchers should protect, even as technology and systems continue to change?

A. The importance of personal interaction and communication is key. In the care of patients, human contact can never be wholly supplanted by machines.

Q. What role do you think a learned society such as the Manchester Lit & Phil should play in the coming decade, particularly in a world of rapid information and polarised debate?

A. The encouragement and availability of learned societies like the Manchester Lit &Phil to young aspiring professionals and knowledge and culture seekers need to be facilitated and encouraged by their mentors.

Q. What would you like younger members of Manchester Lit &Phil to know about how to get the most from the Society?

A. The involvement of volunteers from amongst the more senior members of the Society to take on a ‘buddy-role’ should be considered and evaluated.

Q. If you could leave readers with one thought about curiosity, service, partnership, or a well-lived life, what would it be?

A. Remain curious; never stop learning.

 

By Dr Eda Gliga-Baubec PhD, Trustee and member of Manchester Lit & Phil

Ford Madox Brown and Manchester 

Was he a member of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society? A minor Victorian mystery. 

Ford Madox Brown is usually considered a Pre-Raphaelite artist although he was not a member of the original founding Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. He knew a number of the Pre-Raphaelite artists and adopted their style. 

The Pre-Raphaelites were a group of 19th century artists who focused on vibrant colour and close attention to detail. A number of their paintings and works had religious themes or elements of social commentary. 

Madox Brown spent much of his working life in London but he has also come to be closely associated with Manchester. In the early part of his life, he had not been commercially successful but by the time he reached his mid 50s he secured what was probably his most lucrative and successful commission which saw him through most of the final part of his artistic career, the Manchester murals. 

The Manchester Murals

In the 1870s Alfred Waterhouse was designing Manchester‘s new town hall. He and the city Council were keen to have murals illustrating Manchester’s history as a major part of the interior decor. A Manchester artist, Frederick Shields, was a key advocate for Madox Brown, and himself, to be the artists creating the murals. 

There was a considerable risk in using the medium of mural. The damp Manchester weather did not lend itself to traditional mural painting in fresco, i.e. applying the paint direct to wet plaster. Also, recent murals such as in the Palace of Westminster had been considered to be unsuccessful due to the technical challenges. These challenges, which Madox Brown would have to overcome, included painting to the right scale and perspective on large surfaces and colours which would change or fade as the pigments dried. 

Notwithstanding these risks the City Council and Waterhouse decided to go ahead with using mural and in 1878-79 Madox Brown and Shields were commissioned to create the mural scheme. The original plan was to create twelve, six each. 

Although Madox Brown had previously had contact with the Manchester art world, the Manchester murals commission marked the beginning of a fairly long and close association with the city. 

From the start there was controversy because Madox Brown believed that he was not being paid enough. The original price was £275 per mural with the City Council dictating the subject matter and wanting to see and approve drawings for each one. However, the drawings and preparatory cartoons did have some additional benefit to Madox Brown because he kept ownership of those and was able to sell them on. 

There was some dispute about the subject matter from the outset. The City Council had intended that the murals would reflect aspects of Manchester history to give the local population knowledge and pride in it. However, as one of the influential commentators of the day, William Axon, pointed out, at least two subjects of the murals, the Baptism of Edwin and the trial of Wycliff took place in York and London respectively. The decision to include those events in a cycle of pictures depicting the history of Manchester was based on the fact that they still represented the coming of Christianity and the beginnings of non-conformity which were key parts of Manchester’s history. 

Madox Brown wanted to finish the cycle with the Peterloo massacre which was probably indicative of his social liberalism and desire to paint a scene with action. But to his annoyance that was refused by the City Council as being too controversial. Therefore, the cycle ended with John Dalton, one of the city’s great scientists and a founding member of the Literary and Philosophical Society. 

When Madox Brown started the murals, because of the problems with traditional fresco methods he used what was known as the Gambier Parry method, which involved mixing gum and varnish with the paints then applying to a dry prepared surface. That was felt to be more resistant to damp and indeed during the recent restoration of the town hall it has been found that the murals have survived the Manchester climate reasonably well.

Initially Madox Brown continued to live in London and stay temporarily in Manchester. However, he soon found that he was working long hours, from 10 am until 10 pm, seven days a week, so in 1881 he decided to move himself and his family to Manchester where he resided until 1887. Initially the Madox Browns lived in Crumpsall before moving in 1883 to the then more fashionable area of Victoria Park. The house they rented in Victoria Park had previously been occupied by Sir Charles Halle of the Halle Orchestra fame. 

While working on the murals Madox Brown would sit inside a canvas tent in the town hall on a moveable wooden platform. To his annoyance life in the town hall continued around him and he protested to the City council about the distractions of flower shows, public meetings and organ recitals occurring in the room while he was working. However, this last did prove something of a benefit because he got to know the Town hall organist, James Pyne, very well and appreciated listening to Pyne practice while he painted. 

Madox Brown was not known for his speed and indeed one of his most famous paintings, Work, which is now in the Manchester City Art gallery, took him 13 years to finish. As the work on the murals progressed it became apparent that the project was going to take longer than anyone anticipated. Frederick Shields also dropped out, leaving Madox Brown to complete all 12 of the murals. That did create an opportunity for him to renegotiate the contract and the price for the final six murals increased to £375 each, with £100 retrospectively being paid for each of the previous six murals. Despite this Madox Brown was not happy and felt undervalued, making a number of complaints to the City Council about what he was being paid. 

It also became apparent that it was too difficult to paint the murals in situ given the distractions so Madox Brown switched from painting them direct onto the walls to painting them onto canvas, which would then be attached to the walls. That meant that by 1887 he could move back to London and finish the last three murals on canvas in his London studio thereby ending his residence in Manchester. 

Manchester Society in the late nineteenth century and Madox Brown’s part in it.

During his time in Manchester Madox Brown integrated into the artistic and intellectual life of the city. Victorian Manchester has become known as the “shock city” of the industrial revolution, typifying many of its good and bad characteristics. 

It was a city where many people lived in appalling poverty as outlined by Engels in his Condition of the Working Class in England. 

But alongside that was a thriving intellectual life, with much activity in the sciences, arts and literature. The Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society was of course a key part of that, but then there were many other active clubs and societies as well, some of which Madox Brown played an active part in. For example, he lectured at the Manchester Literary Club and the Royal Manchester Institution, whose building is now part of the Manchester City Art gallery. He was an honorary member of the Brasenose club and regularly attended the Halle. 

Especially after he moved to Victoria Park, he hosted gatherings at his home which included such movers and shakers in the Manchester scene as CP Scott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian and Charles Rowley. 

Rowley was a keen promoter of the arts but also a social reformer who encouraged Madox Brown to assist in some of his welfare activities in Ancoats, by for example giving free lectures on art. Brown, Rowley and other friends set up a labour bureau in Manchester to assist the unemployed to find work. In 1886 Brown was one of the speakers at a meeting for the unemployed in Pomona Gardens with an attendance of around 6000. 

Browns interest in social issues is also highlighted by one of his most famous paintings, Work. To his pride this picture was acquired by Manchester City Art Gallery and still forms a prominent part of its Pre-Raphaelite collection. The picture is well worth seeing if visiting the art gallery Much has been written about this complex painting, including by Madox Brown himself, but essentially it is a hymn to the dignity of work, by hand and brain. Although it is set in the street in Hampstead, it is interesting to see that there are some connections with Madox Brown’s time in Manchester. When addressing the unemployed in Pomona Gardens, Brown condemned charitable middle-class ladies who blamed drink for the condition of the working classes, which is also illustrated in one of the scenes in Work, where a middle-class woman’s pamphlets against drink are discarded by the hard-working road navvies. 

Brown had an interesting and sometimes challenging personal life. One of the reasons why he moved his family to Manchester was that he had concerns about his second wife, Emma, who was unfortunately an alcoholic. He decided to move the family to Manchester so that he could care for her while he was engaged on the mural work. It was also an opportunity for her to commit to giving up drink which sadly did not work long-term. Emma was also one of the reasons why he eventually left Manchester, believing that the damp climate was affecting her health. Madox Brown also had a relationship with Mathilde Blind, a German writer with radical views who also moved to Manchester with the Madox Brown family, causing some tensions for the artist at home. 

Additionally, Brown’s own health was not great. He suffered from gout and during the course of the Manchester murals commission suffered a minor stroke which meant that one of the murals, Bradshaw, had to be painted with his left hand. The fact that the murals turned out as good as they did and have survived the test of time, notwithstanding the technical and health challenges that Madox Brown experienced, is a testament to his artistic skills. 

Madox Brown and the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society – was he a member? 

When researching this article, it had been thought that Madox Brown was a member of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, probably based on his activities during his fairly long period in Manchester and the circles within which he moved. However, confusion may have arisen between the Society and similarly named Manchester Literary Club. These were two different organisations, both existing at the same time in Manchester. Madox Brown certainly played a part in the Literary Club but there is no evidence from the Literary and philosophical Society membership list that he was a member of the Society. However, he would have mixed in circles and had contact with people who were. William Axon for example, who expressed strident views on the subject matter of the murals, was supported and employed by CP Scott as a journalist for the for the Manchester Guardian. Madox Brown was friendly with Scott, painting his daughter and showing his children round the town hall. Axon was an active member of the Literary and Philosophical Society, presenting several lectures to it. Brown and Axon would have known of each other, and it can be seen from these connections that there was a network of intellectuals in nineteenth century Manchester from which the modern-day Society has developed. 

One of the final pictures in the Manchester murals cycle is of John Dalton collecting Marsh gas. Dalton was of course a key early member of the Literary and Philosophical Society and many of his records were kept by the Society. When seeking increased pay for the murals commission, Madox Brown complained to the Council that it was taking a lot longer than anticipated in part because of the time taken to research the subject matter. That raises the possibility that Madox Brown could have consulted the records of the Literary and Philosophical Society to do some of his research for the mural. 

Although reference to literature is in the name, in the late nineteenth century, judging by the membership list, the Society tended to have a more scientific emphasis which could account for why Madox Brown would have been more active in the now defunct Literary Club. Nowadays the Literary and Philosophical Society has a wide membership and promotes a number of events which are dedicated to the arts as well as the sciences. 

For those interested in Madox Brown’s association with Manchester and indeed artistic life in the city in his time, it’s well worth visiting his murals in the Town Hall when restoration has finished and his major picture, Work, in the City art Gallery which also has an excellent collection of other Pre- Raphaelite art. To finish up your tour of Madox Brown in Manchester, you could even go to the Ford Madox Brown pub on Oxford Road near to his Manchester home in Victoria Park. 

Andrew Welch, member of Manchester Lit & Phil