In a letter to his son, dated 8th of 12th month, 1808, he says:—
“John Birtell has paid £48 4s. 7d. for the pictures, frames and cases, which should be repaid to him. I understood from S. A. it was thy wish to make thy sister a present of one of them, and in that case please to remit the amount to John Birtell; if she (S. A.) is mistaken, remit the money to J. B. nevertheless, and I will repay thee the half of it; but I insist upon one condition both from thee and thy sister: that as long as I live, the pictures be nowhere but in your bed-chambers. The first was begun without my knowledge, and indirect means used to accomplish it; at length I was candidly told it was determined to have it, and when I saw what was done, I thought it better to sit for the finishing than to have it a mere caricature; but I think it a very moderate performance at last. I was willing too, to avail myself of the opportunity, if such a one must be presented, of exhibiting my belief of Christianity as exhibited in the 5th chapter of the Romans; and my estimation of certain authors, by affixing their names to the books delineated in the back ground.”
In reference to this subject (his portrait), some twelve months after, in a letter to his son, he says:—
“This reminds me to mention what I intended to have mentioned before; that is, an alteration I propose to be made in the one here, and if this could be done in the others, I should like it; and which, I suppose, would be best effected by obliterating the books, and arranging them differently, according to the estimation in which their writings or character may be supposed to be held; with the addition of Kempis and Fenelon, not only for their intrinsic merits, but to show that our good opinion was not confined to our own countrymen. They would then stand thus:—
“Fox and Penn.
Woolman and Clarkson.
Hanway and Howard.
Milton and Cowper.
Addison and Watts.
Barclay and Locke.
Sir W. Jones and Sir W. Blackstone.
Kempis and Fenelon.“I do not know whether I gave thee my reasons, as I did to thy sister, for the original selection. She may shew thee my letter to her, and thou may communicate the above to her, with my dear love to all, repeated from
“Thy affectionate father,
“Richard Reynolds.”
It was the custom when Mr. Reynolds had charge of the Coalbrookdale works to perform long journeys on horseback, and we have heard it said that on one occasion, being mounted on the back of an old trooper, near Windsor, where George III. was reviewing some troops, the horse, on hearing martial music, pricked up his ears, and carried Mr. Reynolds into the midst of them before he could be reined up. He was a good horseman, and a grandson of Mr. Reynolds writes:—
“We also enjoyed very much our grandfather’s account of a visit paid to the Ketley Iron Works by Lord Thurlow, the then Lord Chancellor. My grandfather, having gone through the works with his lordship, and given him all requisite information and needful refreshment, proposed to accompany him part of the way on his return, which offer his lordship gratefully accepted, and the horses were ordered to the door accordingly. They were, both of them, good riders, and were, both of them, well mounted. The Lord Chancellor’s horse, no doubt a little instigated thereto by his owner, took the lead, and my grandfather’s horse, nothing loth to follow the example, kept as nearly neck and neck with his rival as his owner considered respectful. The speed was alternately increased, until they found themselves getting on at a very dashing pace indeed! and they became aware that the steeds were as nearly matched as possible. At last, the Chancellor pulled up, and complimenting my grandfather upon his ‘very fine horse’ confessed that he had never expected to meet with one who could trot so fast as his own. My grandfather acknowledged to a similar impression on his part; and his lordship, heartily shaking hands with him, and thanking him for his great attention, laughed, and said, ‘I think, Mr. Reynolds, this is probably the first time that ever a Lord Chancellor and a Quaker rode a race together.’”
The years 1774, 1782, and 1796 were periods of great distress. Haggard hunger, despairing wretchedness, and ignorant force were banded to trample down the safeguards of civil right, and armed ruffians took the initiative in scrambles for food. The gravity of the occasion, in the latter case, may be estimated by the subscriptions for the purchase of food for the starving population. We give those of the iron companies of this district only: Messrs. Bishton and Co. gave £1,500; Mr. Botfield, for the Old Park Company, £1,500; Mr. Joseph Reynolds, for the Ketley Company, £2,000; Mr. R. Dearman, for the Coalbrookdale Company, £1,500; Mr. William Reynolds, for the Madeley-Wood Company, £1000. Mr. Richard Reynolds gave £500 as his individual subscription. Applications, in times of distress, from far and near were made to Mr. Reynolds for assistance. Taking a general view of the distress existing in the beginning of the year 1811, he says, in reply to a letter from a clergyman, “I am thankful I am not altogether without sympathy with my fellow-men, or compassion for the sufferings to which the want of employment subjects the poor, or the sufferings still more severe of some of their former employers. Thou mentions Rochdale, Bolton, Leeds, and Halifax. Wilt thou apply the enclosed towards the relief of some of them, at thy discretion? Those who want it most and deserve it best should have the preference,—the aged, honest, sober, and industrious. I am sensible how limited the benefits from such a sum in so populous a district must be, and of the difficulty of personal investigation before distribution. If it could be made subservient to the procuring an extensive contribution it would be of more important service. If it cannot I think it would be best to commit it to some judicious person or persons in each place, to distribute with the utmost privacy, and (that) for their own sakes, were it only to avoid applications from more than they could supply, and yet the refusal would subject them to abuse. But in whatever manner thou shalt dispose of it, I send it upon the express condition that nobody living knows thou ever had it from me; this is matter of conscience with me. In places where we are known, and on public occasions, when one’s example would have an influence, it may be as much a duty to give up one’s name as one’s money; but otherwise I think we cannot too strictly follow the injunction:—‘Take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them, otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.’”
If some poor tradesman in London or elsewhere was tottering on the verge of bankruptcy, and a friend was found to write to Richard Reynolds, he was put upon his legs again. Poor debtors found themselves relieved from the King’s Bench by an unknown hand. Unwilling to be known as the giver of large sums, he would sometimes forward his subscriptions with his name, and send a larger contribution anonymously afterwards. In this way he gave a sum in his own name on behalf of the distress in Germany, and then forwarded a further sum of £500 privately. For years he had almoners in London and elsewhere, dispensing sums to meet distress, and on behalf of public and private charities, scrupulously enacting that his name should not appear in the transactions. To one party he sent £20,000 during the distress of 1795. He had four distributors of his bounty constantly employed in Bristol alone. They brought in their accounts weekly, giving the names of persons or families, the sums given, and the circumstances under which they were relieved. Not the least to be appreciated was the consideration and delicacy with which he assisted persons not ostensibly objects of charity (to use the word in its common sense) and many who, through relationship, personal interest, or estimable conduct were felt to have claims on his kindness and generosity.
He solicited in Bristol subscriptions on a large scale for augmenting the fund for the payment of a weekly sum to the inhabitants of the almshouses, going from house to house,—his own zeal kindling that of others. One gentleman to whom he applied, of acknowledged wealth and importance in the city, having given him a cheque for £500, he said he would give him back the cheque, as such a sum from him would do more harm than good. The gentleman immediately wrote another for £1000. He himself gave £2000 (one of his friends says £4000), and £4000 to the Trinity almshouses. In 1808 he placed in the hands of the trustees the sum of £10,500 to be invested in land, the rent of which was to be devoted to seven charitable institutions in Bristol, named in the deed and trust, in such manner and proportion, either to one alone, or between any, as should at the time appear expedient to the trustees. An addition to the infirmary being needed, he devoted much of his time to that object, subscribing £2,600. The committee also received an anonymous donation of £1000, entertaining no doubt who was the giver; and on the following day one of their number happening to meet Richard Reynolds, thanked him in the name of the committee for his acceptable donation. He said—“Thou hast no authority for saying I sent the money,” and the gentleman repeating the acknowledgment of the committee, Mr. Reynolds quietly said—“Well, I see thou art determined that I should give thee a thousand pounds,” and the next day they received a donation of that sum with his name attached, thus doubling his first contribution. To these gifts may be added (besides his annual subscription) donations:—£1,260 to the Stranger’s Friend; £900 to the Misericordia; £500 to the Refuge, and the same to the Orphan Asylum; and to the Bible Society, £900. Of several other small amounts one need only be mentioned, from his purse,—that of £300 to the Temple parish, towards providing a better supply of water to the poor.
Mr. Reynolds’s last visit to Ketley, the scene of his labours, and the source of his vast income, was in June, 1816. His funeral took place on the 18th of September, amidst a manifestation of respect, as marked and profound as ever was paid to the remains of mortal man. The city of Bristol offered spontaneously to his memory that signal tribute of general regard that a name embalmed by good deeds alone can win. Columns of schoolboys, with mournful recollections of the good man’s smile, formed a melancholy passage to the dwelling of their benefactor. These were flanked by vast crowds of sympathising poor, who felt they had lost a friend. The clergy of the Church of England, ministers of dissenting congregations, gentlemen forming the committees of various societies, and other leading men, besides a large body of the Society of Friends, followed the several members and relatives of the family in procession. So great was public curiosity excited on this occasion, and such the eagerness manifested by the poor, who had lost their best friend, to pay their last respect to his remains, that not only was the spacious burial-ground filled with spectators and mourners, but the very tops of walls and houses surrounding the area were covered. The behaviour of the vast concourse of people was in the highest degree decent, orderly and respectful, the poor, considering it a favour to be permitted in their turn to approach the grave of their departed friend, and to drop the silent tear as a mark of their regard for the man whose life had been spent in doing good.