Lord Byron, however, called it “a pleasant club—a little too sober and literary, perhaps, but, on the whole, a decent resource on a rainy day.”
In 1811, three years after its foundation, there were no fewer than 354 candidates for six vacancies, but this happy state of affairs did not last.
Sir William Fraser described the Alfred as having been “a sort of minor Athenæum,” which perhaps caused a wag to say the title should be changed from Alfred to “Halfread.”
Lord Alvanley, who was a member, once said at White’s: “I stood the Alfred as long as I could, but when the seventeenth Bishop was proposed I gave in; I really could not enter the place without being put in mind of my Catechism.” The Bishops, it is said, resigned the club when a billiard-table was introduced. In the course of time the Alfred languished, and was finally dissolved in 1855.
Hatred of tobacco, it is said, caused the end of the Alfred. A certain influential section of members persistently opposing any improvement in the smoking-room, which was at the top of the house and stigmatized as an “infamous hole,” the committee would make no concession, and so the club was eventually closed.
When it was evident that the Alfred could not maintain an independent existence (though perfectly solvent), a sort of coalition was formed with the Oriental. A large number of members were admitted to the latter without entrance fee, but most of the Alfred members joined other clubs, especially the Athenæum.
A flourishing little literary club of modern origin is the Savile, in Piccadilly. This possesses a very curious table, which was purchased some years ago. It would appear to have been made during the mid-Victorian period, and is embellished with a number of curious designs in various woods—masterpieces of the inlayer’s art. Amongst these is a portrait of the late Queen Victoria.
CHAPTER XI
THE GARRICK—JOCKEY CLUB AT NEWMARKET—ROYAL YACHT SQUADRON AT COWES—CONCLUSION
Though various London clubs possess a certain number of pictures and objets d’art, the Garrick stands alone in the ownership of a unique collection. This, however, has been described so frequently that any detailed treatment would be superfluous.