An Introduction to The Humours of an Election
Paintings in series
The Humours of an Election, (1754-55) comprises just four paintings, unlike the earlier series also owned by Soane, A Rake’s Progress (1734), which has eight scenes. Larger and infinitely more assured works, An Election is widely thought to be the most finely painted of Hogarth’s series of ‘Modern Moral Subjects’. In his Autobiographical Notes, Hogarth claimed credit for inventing, in the 1730s, the genre of painted pictorial sequences that told a story: ‘[I] turn[ed] my thoughts to still a more new way of proceeding, viz painting and Engraving moder[n] moral Subject[s] a Field unbroke up in any Country or any age.’ They were innovative because the pictorial narratives showed aspects of contemporary eighteenth-century life in series, though there were Italian engraved precedents. The Humours of an Election was the last of these series that Hogarth painted and its subject matter - the corruption endemic in the eighteenth-century electoral process - is part of an established history of political satire in Britain.¹

From painting to engraving
As with A Rake’s Progress the paintings of An Election were essentially preparatory works for engravings which Hogarth sold in sets, a lucrative practice. But the fact that they are so highly finished suggests that he hoped to sell them independently. The subscription for An Election was announced in March 1754 and the first plate advertised as ready for subscribers in February 1755. Dissatisfied with his own attempts to engrave the first scene, he employed French engravers and the last three plates were not issued until 1758. In February 1757 Hogarth announced in The London Evening Post that he was ‘obliged to inform the Subscribers to his Election Prints, That the three last cannot be publish’d till about Christmas next, which Delay is entirely owing to the Difficulties he has met with to procure able Hands to engrave the Plates.’²

Purchase and location
Like many of Soane’s purchases, The Humours of an Election had a significant provenance that enhanced the paintings’ value in his eyes.³ They previously belonged to David Garrick, one of the foremost Shakespearean actors of his day, whom Soane greatly admired, becoming a founding member of the Garrick Club.⁴ The paintings’ elaborate Rococo style frames are fine mid-eighteenth-century examples. It is not known whether they were commissioned by Hogarth himself, or by Garrick. If the latter he may have consulted Hogarth as the two were great friends. If the former the frames could be tentatively attributed to the only framers documented to have worked for Hogarth, the Gossett family, either Gideon Gossett (fl. 1744 - d. 1785) or Isaac Gosset (1713 - 1799), as their elaborate form is more consistent with French Huguenot carvers than English artisans.⁵

Soane bought An Election in June 1823 from the sale of the effects of Mrs Garrick at Christie's. John Britton recounted the story of the purchase in 1827: ‘This set of pictures ... was purchased by Mr. Garrick of the artist, under peculiar circumstances, for a small sum, - about two hundred pounds, and bought by Mr. Soane at the dispersion of that eminent actor’s effects, in June 1823, for £1,732. The learned and accomplished auctioneer [James Christie the Younger], when he knocked down the lot, neatly and appropriately remarked to this effect: - "As Returning Officer, I have the honour of declaring John Soane Esq. is the successful candidate in this warmly contested Election"’.⁶ The purchase price of £1,650 guineas, or £1,732 10s 0d reflects the very fine standard of the paintings. By comparison Soane would purchase the house at 14 Lincoln’s Inn Fields on 14 October 1823 for less, just £1,480.⁷ It is tempting to believe that the large canvases in their grand frames were at least partially responsible for Soane’s purchase of number 14: there was no obvious place for such large works elsewhere in his house and his first action was to build the Picture Room to the rear of the property, where the paintings still hang to this day in their original positions on the north and south planes.

The political context
The late seventeenth and early eighteenth century saw Britain governed by a constitutional Monarchy. Within parliament Members were aligned with one of two loose ‘parties’: ‘Whig’ or ‘Tory’, unless they were consciously ‘Independent’. In simple terms Toryism became identified with Anglicanism (particularly the high Church with its whiff of Catholicism and inferred Jacobitism) and the squirearchy, a term which describes small-to medium-scale country landowners. Whigs were associated with the Protestant Succession, a policy of taxation, tolerance of religious dissenters, aristocratic landowning families and the financial interests of the wealthy middle classes.⁸ However, this simplification ignores the fact that during the first half of the eighteenth century these groups were not always clearly defined and their policies were not always as distinct from each other as in modern political parties: alternative or multiple interests and allegiances were possible. For example, whether ‘Whig’ or ‘Tory’, it was not unusual to also be allied to a ‘Court’ or ‘Country’ interest. A ‘Court’ interest in the House of Commons comprised those Members whose first loyalty was to the monarch and his or her ministers, and not to a party or faction. A ‘Country’ interest suggested opposition to the administration and defending the true interests of the kingdom - preservation of liberty and the establishment of frugal and honest government - against the self-interested machinations of corrupt courtiers.⁹

In addition to ‘parties’ or ‘interests’ the wealth, status and patronage of individual grandees, or kinship groups (many of the ruling families were inter-related) could be what drew MPs to one faction or another in Parliament. Patronage also reached beyond the House of Commons. Patronage and client networks linked nobles wielding national influence and enjoying access to the monarch, to local notables¹⁰ and to the common elector. An elector might align himself with the group that could offer him the most in return, be that a position of power within the administration, money, gifts, or simply local employment. With political ideals shifting and multiple interests at play, arguably the most constant element within early eighteenth-century politics was the notion of patronage, which was generally only a step away from corruption.

The Humours of an Election is a satire on the parlous state of the political nation in mid-eighteenth-century Britain, specifically parodying the 1754 Oxfordshire county election. Between 1710 and 1754 Oxfordshire was a Tory stronghold and the two parliamentary seats were not contested. In 1754 two Whig candidates, Sir Edward Turner and Lord Parker, supported by Whig grandees the Duke of Marlborough and Lords Macclesfield and Harcourt stood for parliament against the incumbent Tory MPs, Lord Wenman and Sir James Dashwood. After forty years without contest the Oxfordshire election became a talking point. According to The London Evening Post ‘every British Heart is full of the Oxfordshire Election which is become the chief subject of Conversation in the remotest corners of the Island.’¹¹

In the 1750s votes were made in public and recorded for posterity.¹² The right to vote was limited to men, according to specific criteria depending upon whether they lived in a county or a borough. In the counties the ancient forty-shilling freeholder franchise prevailed: the vote belonged to those with freehold property worth £2 [40 shillings] or more.¹³ In Oxfordshire this equated to an electorate of around 4,000¹⁴ and these eligible men expected to have their vote bought by the candidates and their patrons. The Oxfordshire election became a byword for bribery, corruption and foul play. It was ‘probably the most notorious county election of the century: no expense or chicanery was spared by either side.’¹⁵ Henry Pelham, then the Prime Minister, ‘with the King’s consent and knowledge’, promised £7,000 towards the Whigs’ election expenses, and the Tories spent over £20,000—of which over £8,000 was raised by public subscription.¹⁶

Four stages of the political process
Hogarth captures four elements of the election process in his paintings: the elaborate entertainment of the townsfolk to win their support, the flagrant bribery of the country electors, the shenanigans associated with polling day itself and the ‘chairing’ of the winners through the town. Collectively the paintings depict the chaotic consequences of a political system built on the mutual avarice and dishonesty of both the candidates and the electorate. The pictures are typically Hogarthian: intelligent, intricate and rich with allusion. Yet, despite their complexity, through their use of humour, familiar locations and stereotypical characters, they effortlessly lay bare the networks of patronage and corruption which sustained the eighteenth-century political system.

Canvassing for Votes
The second scene, Canvassing for Votes, is set out of town, to reflect the ‘Country’ interest vested in any election. The blue sky, rolling green hills and church with spire and hamlet in the distance create a notionally bucolic atmosphere far from the intense and overpopulated composition of the first canvas and unlike many of Hogarth’s works present an unidentifiable rather than specific setting. However, the scene is no less driven by self-interest and personal gain than the first: Hogarth shows individuals in the countryside to be just as avaricious and unprincipled as the crowd in the towns. Guzzledown could be set anywhere and by inference its vices are everywhere.
There are three inns depicted, representing the electorate’s three broad affiliations. The Whigs, the challengers in the 1754 Oxfordshire election, are represented by the inn furthest away. Called The Crown it is intended to reflect the Whig’s frequent association with the ‘court’ interest. A panel labelled ‘The Excise Office’ a reference to the Whig party’s taxation policy and its possible joint purpose as a temporary tax office has been hung underneath the inn sign.¹⁷ Below is a rabble armed with sticks, being shot at by a well-dressed man leaning out of one of the inn windows. They are raging around the sign and the taxes it represents, attempting to pull it down, one man sawing at its support at the same time as two others pull on it with a rope whilst ‘all the while poor simple Elves, They little think ‘twill crush them-selves’.¹⁸ The mob’s antics are ridiculed, the man with the saw not realising he will topple along with the sign and the mob beneath equally unaware that they will be crushed. On a more abstract level the inference is that whilst raging against taxation imposed by authority, many of the lower classes do not comprehend that taxation is in some degree necessary to the smooth running of the state, therefore their political intervention is not only ill-informed but likely to be catastrophic.

In the foreground is another inn, the prosperous looking ‘Royal Oak’, the Tory headquarters, built in the fashionable classical style. Its sash windows, fine brickwork, stone doorcase, elaborate stone balcony and bow window along with its neatly paved forecourt all attest to the thriving state of its business. Even the inn sign is set in a frame mimicking one of the fashionable rococo picture frames of the day. In a room on the upper floor, lit by a chandelier with twelve candles Tory gentlemen have congregated, perhaps to strategise and, given the clouds in the room, to smoke.¹⁹ Their candidate has abandoned them, seemingly more concerned with women than politics. Dressed in a fine buff-coloured coat, gold waistcoat and white lace shirt he has rushed down from the balcony where he was conversing with two equally finely dressed ladies, leaving behind his hat, to buy trinkets for the women from a Jewish pedlar who is presenting his wares in front of the inn. The gifts were typically intended to influence the ladies to persuade their relatives to vote for the Tories: yet the candidate’s expression is described as an ‘am’rous Leer’²⁰ and he is pointing at a snuff box whose pattern is very similar to that given to the beautiful lady in the first scene who we assume has sold her favours for a Whig vote. His name is Tim[oth]y Partitool as inscribed on the letter a servant is holding out to him which he ignores, oblivious to anything other than the charms of the two females leaning over the balcony’s edge to better view the pedlar’s goods. Neglected at the candidate’s feet lie bundles of playbills that advertise an event ‘AT PUNCHES THEAT[RE] …. IN THE ROYAL / OKEYARD’ whilst election pamphlets hope that ‘Sir Your Vote /... & Interest’ will be awarded to the Tories.

Unlike the Tory candidate the local people are all entirely occupied with the business of the election. At the door of the inn sits the landlady, her dull fawn-coloured dress covered with a clean white apron, her arms and mob cap adorned with the blue colours of the Tory party. At her waist are the keys to the inn and she is counting the gold and silver coins in her lap, the proceeds of the election entertainments her inn has hosted. Behind her in the doorway a grenadier peers at the money, some of which is presumably going to pay him for his services in protecting the inn, from the violent fracas that is taking place outside the Crown. In the bay window of the inn sit two rustically-dressed gentlemen, greedily consuming a large pie and whole chicken, presumably paid for by the Tories.

By contrast the Portobello Inn, on the right, represents the Independents’ political views, their rejection of party affiliations and factional interests and is the sole example of the potential for political integrity in the scene. It is a simple, traditional alehouse with its oriel window, leaded glass, exposed beam structure and red and white painted sign all denoting a traditional ale-house frequented by the common man of sound good sense and no pretensions. Sitting at a plain wooden table outside are two such men, both drunk and with their wigs askew. On the left is a rubicund cobbler, blind in one eye, wearing a leather apron and with a shoe before him on the table, he is smoking a pipe and dangling a pipe stopper from his finger. On the right is a barber whose jug, napkin and shaving dish are placed neatly on the ground in front of the table and who is nursing a tankard with the inscription ‘John Stow / PortoBello’ and has laid six pieces of broken clay pipe on the table in a semi-circle.

The naval analogy would have been very clear to Hogarth’s contemporaries.²¹ Admiral Edward Vernon MP (1684-1757) became a national hero when, with just six ships - indicated by the six pieces of clay pipe laid out in battle formation - he famously defeated the Spanish at Portobello in 1739. Many inns were named after the battle. The inference is that the barber was employed on one of the ships and regales the cobbler with his experiences. Admiral Vernon was renowned for his independent views, and honest nature. His naval success brought him wealth but he refused all honours, offers of jobs and bribes, preferring to return to his estate, Nacton in Suffolk and represent his constituency in parliament as he saw fit, often in typically rough seagoing language. In front of the Royal Oak, facing the table outside the Portobello is a figurehead from a British war ship, upon which the landlady is sitting, a lion shown devouring a fleur-de-lys. This refers to the figurehead of the Centurion the ship in which another celebrated seaman, George, Admiral Lord Anson (1697-1762) circumnavigated the globe in 1744. Anson would go on to beat the French at Finisterre in 1747. After being replaced in 1747 the old figurehead was given to the 2nd Duke of Richmond who placed it outside the Richmond Arms an inn near his estate at Goodwood. Unlike Vernon, Anson accepted a peerage, rose to become First Lord of the Admiralty, married the Lord Chancellor’s wealthy daughter and bought electoral control of the borough of Lichfield: in 1747, aligned with a local Tory he spent £20,000 to return his brother to parliament.²² The juxtaposition of the lion with the Portobello, in effect the contrast between Vernon and Anson, is stark and party affiliations, Tory or otherwise, are presented as worthless by comparison to the moral integrity of the Independents. However, the Independent cobbler is shown blind in one eye and protecting a pile of silver coins: has he too ‘turned a blind eye’ to his conscience and been bribed for his vote in a classic example of patronage and bribery confounding even the soundest of principles?

In the centre the Royal Oak’s sign depicts the Boscobel Oak in which King Charles II (1630-85) hid to escape the parliamentarian forces after his defeat at the Battle of Worcester in 1651. Hung from the inn sign’s support is a large advertisement for a Punch and Judy show, something often used at election time as a means to throw thinly veiled insults at the opposition’s character or policies under the guise of ‘entertainment’. The upper part of the cloth advertisement shows gold coins pouring theatrically out of a window of the new Treasury building on Whitehall in London²³ into a sack whilst a similar sack is loaded onto a waiting wagon marked ‘OXFORD’, reference to the bribes authorised by the Whig government to help secure the election. The incipient folly of the government is echoed in the fact that the arch of the adjacent new Horse Guards building is so low that it has knocked off the royal coachman’s head. The lower part of the cloth advertises ‘PUNCH CANDIDATE FOR GUZZLEDOWN’ as a crude puppet-like country bumpkin - a far cry from the well-dressed candidates depicted in scene one. He is pushing a wheelbarrow full of gold coins and bags of gold labelled ‘7000’ and ‘9000’ and scattering largesse to the country-folk who eagerly hold out their caps to receive it. The juxtaposition of the inn sign with the advertisement has a double meaning and reflects Hogarth’s pessimistic view of the British state. Not only is the political nation corrupt from top to bottom, from government to rural elector, but also the schismatic Civil War of the mid-seventeenth century has been in vain: an apparently corrupt absolutist Monarch was beheaded in 1649 and his son forced to flee the country in 1651, but just 100 years later the parliamentary system has itself become corrupted.

Beneath the inn sign stands a well-to-do young farmer, dressed in a heavy drab coat and tricorn hat. He is being importuned for his vote to the left by the landlord of the Royal Oak who proffers silver coins and an invitation requesting ‘Your Company to / Dine at the Royal / Oak’ and to the right by the landlord of The Crown who presses a golden guinea into the rustic’s hand along with an invitation to eat ‘… at the Crown’. The yeoman’s expression is a masterpiece of guile and cunning, his eyes slyly shifting between the two agents. Unlike the familiar trope in European painting of the ‘Choice of Hercules’ between vice and virtue the yeoman is faced with two corrupt agents both seeking his vote. Rather than recoiling in face of the corruption and pursuing an honest path, the farmer eagerly accepts both bribes. The inference is that corruption is absolute and invidious and that the elector is as complicit as the political parties in the debasement of the democratic political system.

This catalogue entry was prepared by Joanna Tinworth in October 2021. Sir John Soane's Museum is grateful to Emeritus Professor David Bindman for his peer review.

Footnotes
¹ For example a print of 1727 entitled Ready Mony the prevailing candidate, or the Humours of an Election held the General Election of that year to account, BM 1868,0808.3520. The 1734 poem The Humours of a Country Election was prefaced by six scenes depicting its narrative, BM 1858,0417.607. Two of these, like Hogarth’s composition for scenes two and four of An Election, show bribery taking place in front of an inn and the practice of chairing the winning candidates through the town.
² Ronald Paulson, Hogarth’s Graphic Works, 1989, pp.162-63.
³ See the provenance field for this catalogue entry.
⁴ Soane also owned Garrick’s copy of Twenty of the Plays of Shakespeare, 1766, SM 1528. It was bought by Soane from T. & W. Boone on 3 May 1823 for £25 4s. plus £1 5s. commission following the Garrick sale on 23 April 1823. (Priv. Corr. XVI.E.5.5). Inscribed in pencil on first free-endpaper in William Boone's hand This Book was the Gem of Garrick's / sale, and doubtless the finest copy / extant. / Only 12 copies were printed on this / Paper. David Garrick's engraved bookplate is in each volume.
⁵ Christina Scull, The Soane Hogarths, 2007, p.70.
⁶ John Britton, The Union of Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, 1827, p.55.
⁷ Gillian Darley, John Soane, An Accidental Romantic, 1999, p.268 and SM Journal 6.
⁸ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Whig-Party-England
⁹ D.W. Hayton, Eveline Cruickshanks and Stuart Handley, ed. ‘The Politics of the House’, The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1690-1715, 2002
¹⁰ Jeremy Black, The politics of Britain 1688-1800, 1993, p.26.
¹¹ Mark Hallett and Christine Riding, Hogarth, Exhibition Catalogue, Tate, 2006, p. 228 quotes The London Evening Post, 30 April - 2 May 1754.
¹² It wasn’t until 1872 that the passing of The Ballot Act enforced voting in parliamentary and municipal elections by secret ballot.
¹³ https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/constituencies/constituencies-1754-1790
¹⁴ Christina Scull, The Soane Hogarths, 2007, p. 25.
¹⁵ R. J. Robson, The Oxfordshire Election of 1754, 1949.
¹⁶ https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1754-1790/constituencies/oxfordshire
¹⁷ Elizabeth Einberg, William Hogarth, A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, 2016, p.320.
¹⁸ John Smith, A Poetical Description of Mr. Hogarth's Election Prints; In Four Cantos. Written Under Mr. Hogarth's Sanction and Inspection, 1759, p.13.
¹⁹ The clouds of smoke are somewhat indistinct in the painting but evident in the first state of the engraving. BM S,2.131.
²⁰ John Smith, A Poetical Description of Mr. Hogarth's Election Prints; In Four Cantos. Written Under Mr. Hogarth's Sanction and Inspection, 1759, p.9.
²¹ The summary history of the naval battles and admirals to which the painting alludes is drawn from the extensive coverage in Elizabeth Einberg, William Hogarth, A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, 2016, p.320.
²² R Sedgwick, ed., ‘Lichfield’, The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1715-1754, 1970.
²³ Designed by William Kent (c.1685 -1748) between 1733 and 1736 and completed between 1753 and 1759.

William Hogarth sold The Humours of an Election directly to his friend, the actor David Garrick.¹ Garrick subscribed to a set of engravings of An Election but instead bought the four paintings in around 1762² for the rather low price of about £200.³ Soane purchased An Election from the sale of the effects of Mrs Garrick at Christie's on 23 June 1823. The preamble to the Garrick sale catalogue announces that the effects have been '... brought from the mansion of Mrs Garrick deceased on the Adelphi Terrace and from his villa at Hampton', and mentions 'MORE ESPECIALLY the very famous Original Set of the FOUR ELECTION PICTURES by HOGARTH, the Canvass, the Poll, the Chairing and the Feast, admirable for the variety and strength and spirit of Execution'. In contrast to Garrick around 60 years earlier Soane paid a large sum for the canvases. Soane’s notebook records that ‘At Christie’s bought Hogarth Elect.n 1,650 gns’. The purchase price of £1650 guineas equated to £1,732 10s 0d. Footnotes ¹ Hogarth painted a portrait of David Garrick as Richard III (1745), the role that made the then twenty-four-year-old actor famous. The portrait is now in the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool. The artist and actor became firm friends. In 1757 Hogarth painted David Garrick and his wife, Eva-Maria Veigel. See Elizabeth Einberg, William Hogarth, A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, 2016, pp.274-75, 337-38. ² Bruce Boucher, ‘Soane and Hogarth’ in David Bindman (ed.), Hogarth: Place and Progress, Exhibition Catalogue, Sir John Soane’s Museum, p.19 and Elizabeth Einberg, William Hogarth, A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, 2016, p.316. ³ John Britton, The Union of Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, 1827, p.55.

John B. Nichols, Biographical Anecdotes of William Hogarth, 1781, revised eds. 1782, 1785
John Ireland, Hogarth Illustrated, 3 vols: 1 and 2, 1791 and 1793 (2nd ed.); 3 (supplement), 1798
John Nichols and George Steevens, The Genuine Works of William Hogarth, 3 vols: 1, 1808; 2, 1810; 3, 1817
Britton, Union, 1827, pp. 40, 53-55
Soane, Description, 1830, pp. 15 and 41
Soane, Description, 1835, pp. 16-17
Peter Quennell, 'Hogarth's Election series', History Today, Volume 3, Issue 4, April 1953 (available online at www.historytoday.com/archive)
Paulson, Ronald, Hogarth: His Life, Art and Times, 1971, vol. II, pp. 191-206 and passim
Bindman, David, Hogarth, 1981, pp. 185-189 and passim
Elizabeth Einberg, Manners and Morals: Hogarth and British Painting 1700-1760, exhibition catalogue, Tate Gallery, 1987, cats. 196-199, pp. 209-215
Ronald Paulson, Hogarth's Graphic Works, 1989, pp. 162-169
Christina Scull, The Soane Hogarths, 1991
Peter Thornton and Helen Dorey, A Miscellany of Objects from Sir John Soane's Museum, 1992, pp. VIII, 44, 126, fig. 38
Ronald Paulson, Hogarth, 1993, Vol. III, pp. 152-184 and passim
David Bindman, Hogarth and his Times: Serious Comedy, Exhibition Catalogue, British Museum, 1997
Lars Tharp, Hogarth's China: Hogarth's paintings and 18th-century ceramics, 1997, pp. 103-105
Jenny Uglow, Hogarth: A Life and a World, 1997, pp. 548-561 and passim
Gillian Darley, John Soane, An Accidental Romantic, 1999
Matthew Craske, William Hogarth, 2000, passim
David Bindman, David Ekserjian and William Palin (eds), Hogarth's Election Entertainment. Artists at the Hustings, exhibition catalogue published by Apollo for Sir John Soane's Museum, 2001
Mark Hallett and Christine Riding, Hogarth, exhibition catalogue, Tate, 2006, cats. 120-123, pp. 228-231
Christina Scull, The Soane Hogarths, second revised edition, 2007, pp. 51-63 and passim
New Description, 2007, pp. 26-30 and 100
Elizabeth Einberg, William Hogarth, A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, 2016, pp. 316-324
David Bindman (ed.), Hogarth: Place and Progress, SJSM Exhibition Catalogue, 2019, cats. 52-55
Bruce Boucher, 'Soane and Hogarth' in David Bindman (ed.), Hogarth: Place and Progress, SJSM Exhibition Catalogue, 2019, pp. 17-23
Joanna Tinworth, 'Life in Hogarth's London', Minerva, September/October 2019, pp. 40-45
Jacqueline Riding, Hogarth: Life in Progress, 2021

Hogarth, Tate Britain, London, 2 December 1971 - 6 February 1972
Manners & Morals - Hogarth and British Painting 1700-1760, Tate Britain, London, 15 October 1987 - 3 January 1988
Hogarth's Election Entertainment: Artists at the Hustings, Sir John Soane's Museum, London, 23 March - 25 August 2001; Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle, 6 October 2001 - 6 January 2002
The Soane Hogarths, Sir John Soane's Museum, London, 30 March - 19 June 2004; 26 August 2005 - 25 February 2006
Hogarth, Tate Britain, London, 5 February - 29 April 2007
Hogarth: Place and Progress, Sir John Soane's Museum, London, 9 October 2019 - 5 January 2020

P53, series
P73, series
P78, series
P56, series
O2095, provenance