George and Walter Beaumont, merchants & manufacturers

These two deserve a page of their own.

They were the second and sixth sons of the clergyman George & his wife Betty. George was born in about 1757 when the family were at Gedling, and Walter at Nottingham ten years later. This is the first member of the family to be named Walter, due I have no doubt to the family's strong friendship with the new Rector of Bingham.

George migrated towards Leeds, his mother's home town, and married Jenny Cope at Hemsworth in 1779. They had a daughter and at this time George was living at Timble Bridge, but both wife and child died.

George married again, to Ann Ridsdale. From Timble Bridge they moved to East Parade in Leeds. George was in partnership with Francis Ridsdale (see below) as “merchants” and they were joined by Walter Beaumont but at the end of 1796 this partnership was dissolved. By that time George and Ann had had several daughters, and more were to follow.

George then moved to South Crosland where he and Walter went into business together (or perhaps this was the continuation of the previous business) in premises leased from Richard Henry Beaumont of Whitley.



The brothers lived in some splendour – George at Crosland Hall (also part of the Whitley estate) not very far from the mill, and in due course Walter also was given a long lease of Healey House nearby. They were also supported with loans from their eldest brother Thomas and his in-law William Huthwaite of Nottingham, but unlike other such businesses of the period, this never seems to have been a huge success.

I do not have enough technical knowledge to understand even if it was primarily a wool cloth or cotton business. I have seen cotton suggested but in 1803 the brothers are referred to as Manufacturers of Woollen Goods in connection with a patent that they had obtained for a mixture to be used in the preparation of sheep or lambs wool “for various purposes.”
\

The advertisement in 1811 makes clear that though the premises belonged to the Whitley estate, there was both woollen and cotton equipment for sale which belonged to Walter.

George died in 1807, apparently in debt to his former business partner and relation of his wife, Francis Ridsdale.

After George died I think that Walter moved into Crosland Hall but soon got into financial difficulties and was declared bankrupt by the end of 1810.

The timing of the failure of Walter's business coincides closely with the death of his original, and I suspect rather benign (after all they were family), landlord R.H. Beaumont and the de facto succession of the Whitley estate into the hands of his much more pro-active brother John. But who am I to say whether George and Walter were ever good businessmen?









George and Ann had had numerous daughters. Someone wrote on a copy of our family tree “all insane” and of them -
- Susan or Susanna Maria lived at Ockbrook, Derby as a spinster until her death in 1842;
- Mary died in 1823 at Winsley near Harrogate (see note below);
- Everilde went to live at the house of Willam Elliott at Gedling and lived till 1854 (Mr Elliott was the husband of one of George and Walter's sisters);

- Ann Elizabeth in 1828 married a much older retired Indian Army officer called Henry Huthwaite (assumed to be a relation of Rev. Thomas Beaumont's wife) and lived for a time at Hoveringham not far from Gedling. As a youngish widow she moved to Cornwall and married a certain Thomas Guerin, living at Newlyn. She ended her days in Brighton in 1883.

In 1811 or sometime after, Walter went to his brother's house at East Bridgford where he lived until his death in early 1841. He had married a lady called Caroline Clarkson. She had relatives in South Carolina to whom she wrote from Bridgford in 1840. Walter and Caroline had had one child, Margaret, christened at Almondbury in 1799. Caroline as a widow lived with the Elliotts at Gedling for a while and then moved to Buckinghamshire. She died in 1861. Margaret was to get a legacy from Rev. John Walter of Bingham who made his will in 1807; it appears she died in 1813.

This note is compiled from my own research. The information comes from a large number of sources. As I have combined sources I may well have made some mistakes.

29 March 2018

Added 12 June 2024. I have altered the paragraph about Walter and Caroline so as to make corrections. But lots more information is coming to light about Caroline which may be written up another day.

Added 12 Dec. 2019: I discovered recently that Francis Ridsdale, who if I'm not mistaken was the maternal uncle of Mary and her sisters, was "of Winsley" from about 1820-1824. Presumably he owned or leased a house there. This helps to explain why Mary was there. I think it must have been this Francis Ridsdale, or perhaps his father of the same name, with whom George had been in partnership in Leeds.

Added 18 May 2024. Further discoveries include the fact the both George's wives (Jenny Cope and then Ann Ridsdale) were related to his business partner Francis Ridsdale, and it seems likely that there were family connections to the Beaumont brothers' mother Betty (Green); this is all rather hazy. Another, even more recent discovery is that one of the brothers (I don't know which, but suspect it was Walter) went to America in the early 1790s to help drum up business for a (then) partnership consisting of Francis Ridsdale and the two Beaumonts. This comes from evidence given in a case some years later in which it was said that "one of the Mr Beaumonts" had been in Baltimore (Maryland) prior to April 1795, soliciting orders. The case (Ridsdale v. Grant and/or Grant v. Ridsdale) is written up in various places, with evidence that by the recommendation of "Mr Beaumont," a certain Daniel Grant had sent his son Alexander from Baltimore to Ridsdale & Beaumont in England to establish business connections; and it appears that Mr Grant guaranteed the resulting commitments in terms which he later regretted. There does not seem to be any suggestion that "Mr Beaumont" was more deeply involved, and indeed it appears that a certain William Hamilton joined the Ridsdale - Beaumont partnership in London, but that the Beaumont brothers left that partnership at the end of 1796, the same time as a Ridsdale - Beaumont partnership in Leeds was ended. Sources include "Reports of Cases...(Maryland)" and London Gazette.

Charles Beaumont's will, proved in 1774

Still thinking about the Romney portrait mentioned in the note a few days ago, I got Charles Beaumont's will from the PRO.

The reference is PROB 11/1003/229. Its date [proved] 20 December 1774.

“This is the last Will and Testam[en]t of me Charles Beaumont late of the Inner Temple London Gentleman after payment of all my just debts and funeral expenses I give and bequeath all the personal estate whereof I shall die possessed to be equally [insertion: “divided”] between and among my Brothers Thomas and John and my Sister Elizabeth Beaumont the said legacies to be paid within twelve months [insertion: “next”] after my decease and I hereby will that my Body be interred in any place at the discretion of my Executor hereinafter mentioned (the County of York excepted) and I further will that it be buried in as private a manner as my my [sic] said Executor shall think fit and hereby

over page

revoking all former wills by me at any time heretofore made and I declare this to be my last Will and Testament and of the same do hereby appoint my said Brother John sole Executor In Witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this Sixth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy three Chas. Beaumont signed sealed published and declared by the said Testator as and for his last Will and Testament in the presence of us who in his presence at his desire and in the presence of each other have subscribed our Names as Witnesses hereto John Hull No.48 Fleet Street Hen: Freeman Hatton Garden

.................

Notes:

The next younger brother of "RHB," Charles was born in July 1750.

He is the figure depicted in the portrait on the right hand side of the large group portrait. He looks old for his years!

The will is entirely consistent with the Family Tree in that Charles died in July 1774 and was buried in the churchyard of St. Andrew's, Holborn.*

Fascinating that he should be happy to be buried anywhere - except in Yorkshire!

The books usually refer to Charles as being “of Staples Inn.” However he does not appear in the list of admissions to Staple Inn published c.1906 by E. Williams in “Staple Inn: Customs House, Wool Court, and Inn of Chancery” (Appdx E).

Nor did I find him in the online database of admissions to the Inner Temple.

* The additional statement of where Charles was buried is not in all versions of the family tree but is in the one written in RHB's own hand in 1796 (Box 1/154-166).


This note made 11 March 2018

In the picture - the Beaumont Family Portrait, by George Romney

It has long been recognised that some information provided about this picture was wrong.

1. The history of the picture

Family members visited George Romney's studio starting with one visit in 1776. Sittings took place separately, mainly in 1777 and 1778, continuing into 1779. Work on it may have continued well after this because the final payment for it was not until Sept. 1782.  It was "Mr Beaumont" (RHB presumably) who paid Romney the final instalment, of £194.

The picture was then presumably sent to Whitley Hall where it may have remained for many years, certainly until after RHB died, which was in 1810. He was in effect succeeded by his great nephew and namesake Richard Henry Beaumont 1805-1857 who actually lived at Clarence Lodge, Roehampton in SW London, and/or Brighton. He in turn left Whitley to his cousin and godson Henry Frederick Beaumont ("HFB") 1833-1913, who I believe lived mainly in London or at Irnham Hall, Lincolnshire, moving to Ascot later in his life.

At some stage a full-scale copy of the picture was made. See below.

Some time before 1904 HFB provided some inaccurate information about the group portrait which was published that year by Humphry Ward and W. Roberts in their detailed "Essay" on Romney and catalogue of his work.

Ward and Roberts state that the picture was still at Whitley (but they do not say that HFB told them that), and it seems unlikely that they saw it.

The picture was then lent to the Royal Academy and exhibited (no.147) in 1910. I have not seen the catalogue notes used at that time but I think they were still based on what HFB had said.

HFB died in 1913. He had two sons, the elder being Henry Ralph Beaumont 1865-1948, who sold the picture in 1919 to the National Gallery for £13,000 and indeed completed the sale of Whitley in the 1920s.

In a short article in the Burlington Magazine in 1919 some of the misinformation was corrected but for some reason that article has remained somewhat buried and has not effectively prevented dissemination of the older wrong information.

After being with the National Gallery for some years - as No. 3400 - the picture is now with the Tate, apparently in store. It still has the same number.

It is a large oil on canvas measuring almost 3 metres wide and 2 metres high. I do wonder if RHB wrote on the back of the frame as he did with some of his other pictures.

Here is the picture again .....

2. The people in (and not in) the picture (speaking as at 1777)

The picture takes about five years to be completed, starting this year (1777). Mrs Elizabeth Beaumont is widowed. She has three surviving sons and a married daughter.

(I make some half-educated guesses.....)

Mrs B has learned that her youngest son John has become the father of a son by a girl to whom he is not married. There is some unhappiness here, so it may do no harm to have a family picture to help build an impression of unity.

The eldest son, Richard Henry, is 29. He has finished Oxford and is interested in scholarly and antiquarian pursuits. In the picture he is the second from left. We call him "RHB". *

The second son, Charles, died in London three years ago (July 1774), at the age of 24. He was on the way to becoming a lawyer. He is depicted in the portrait on the easel at right. (It does not follow from this that there actually is, or ever was, such a portrait) **.

The third son, Thomas, is shown at left in military uniform. Aged about 26, he is in the 4th Dragoons, having bought his promotion to Lieutenant about 2 years ago.

The youngest son, John, is 25. He was in the 29th Regiment, but he has not remained in the army. He is the one who has a new-born son but has not yet married.  Significantly, although he will marry before the picture is finished, his wife will not be included in it (information that I have, carries no implication that the girl he marries is, or is not, the mother of the infant). John is shown centre, leaning on the chair. *

The daughter, Elizabeth, shown seated, is aged 24. Three years ago, within a few days of her 21st birthday, she married the Anglo-Irish army officer George Bernard, who is 8 or 9 years her senior and was then already a Captain in the Inishkilling Dragoons.*** He still has that rank. He will be included in the portrait, standing on the right hand side, slightly separate from the Beaumonts.* It almost looks as though including him was a late decision, and indeed there exists a sketch of it in which he is not shown.

(* Alex Kidson reasons that Captain Bernard is the one leaning on the chair, and that the one on the right is John. Another view was that RHB is the one leaning on the chair, and that John is standing next to Thomas. But I believe that what HFB told Ward & Roberts should be entirely disregarded!)

(** though as it happens, there is such a portrait. I have this information from Alex Kidson, who is far from convinced it is Charles. So if I'm wrong, I'm responsible!!)

(*** Elizabeth & George were married in York in October 1774. I think it likely that the Beaumonts had a house there. Can anyone tell me if the Inishkilling Dragoons were based at York then?)

3. Some extra notes

Richard Henry Beaumont 1749-1810 ("RHB")

I have seen much information about him and much that he wrote. I think he was a snob but am sure he was a serious and accurate antiquary and genealogist. Of the many mistakes, I don't think many were made by RHB.

I suspect he was a disaster as an estate manager.

In my family there is another picture of RHB, shown at least twenty years older. I wrote a piece recently about it. I think this one may have been in his sister's house. It is not to be confused with another Romney portrait of him, which appears to have remained with the Whitley Beaumont family and was eventually owned by one of HFB's daughters, Miss Octavia Beaumont, of Drayton Gardens, London SW. She sold it at Christie's in 1932, when I understand the then Lord Allendale bought it.

John Beaumont (1752-1820)

John Beaumont had in fact had a military role. He had been made up from Ensign to Lieutenant, 29th Regt of Foot, in 1774 (London Gazette 5 April 1774) and thus might have been portrayed in uniform, but I don't think he was still in the army (see footnote). The Family Tree (based on the work of RHB) says that John's son - Charles Richard Beaumont - was born on 22 May 1777 and that John married a woman called Sarah Butler - at Lambeth - the following year. This was all going on when the sittings with Romney were taking place, so John's wife might be the Mrs Beaumont who once or twice attended Romney's studio. Or that could, as suggested by various writers, mean Mrs Bernard. Or equally it could mean the old lady.

I have not found mentions of John Beaumont's marriage to Sarah Butler in the newspapers, Gentleman's Magazine, etc.. Does anyone know of any parish register record of it? John and Sarah had two legitimate daughters born before the picture was delivered.

Ultimately it seems that RHB, the custodian of the family genealogy, did not try to fudge things much.

Thomas Beaumont 1751-1782

Experts writing about the group portrait seem not to have followed up about my picture of Thomas (1751-1782), despite its existence being published in Country Life in 1955.

Several writers have given themselves the impression that Thomas was not commissioned until after the Romney family group was painted. This is because they confuse him with a cousin called Thomas Richard Beaumont (1758-1829) who did indeed not begin a military career till 1780. This error is made for example in [Sir] Martin Davies' 1946 National Gallery Catalogue, in Mr Rodway's letter to Country Life in 1955, in a letter from a Brigadier Bullock to Country Life at that time, and again in a letter from the National Army Museum to Mrs Margaret Shepherd dated 10 March 1965.

However, Thomas Beaumont (1751-1782) was a Cornet from 1769 in the 4th Regiment of Dragoons and a Lieutenant from 1772 (Scots Magazine 1 August 1769, 1 January 1772; London Gazette Issue 11216 January 1772, and 11389 September 1773).

On the other hand Thomas Richard Beaumont (1758-1829) was a cornet in the 22nd Light Dragoons from 1780. Further confusion may have resulted from the fact that George Bernard seems to have been his superior officer (several ranks above) in the 22nd Dragoons, since it was from there that he was promoted in late 1782.

So, Thomas (1751-1782) was a Lieutenant (4th Dragoons) throughout the whole period the painting was in progress. He died at Whitley on 10 November 1782.

George Bernard c.1749-1820

When he married Elizabeth in 1774 he was a Captain in the 6th (or Inishkilling [Enniskillen]) Dragoons, having been a Lieutenant in that unit five years earlier. Moving around other units he still had the rank of Captain until 1782, and is mentioned as being promoted from Captain, 22nd Dragoons (in which Thomas Richard Beaumont was then a Cornet), to Major, 20th Light Dragoons, in late 1782 (London Gazette), then Lt-Col a year later when his unit was the 86th Regiment of Foot. From 1786 for three years he was Lieutenant-Governor of Kinsale and Charles Fort in SW Ireland, and then he was apparently on half pay for a while. Then, back in Yorkshire in late 1793 he raised the 84th Regiment of Foot, this being when RHB was High Sheriff and Rev. Thomas Beaumont was Chaplain (see my earlier notes). Bernard then commanded the 84th in Holland in 1794 and was promoted to full Colonel. It would seem that by 1803 he may have been taking retirement and was made progressively Major-, Lieutenant-, and full General.

In the sources, his surname often appears as "Barnard."

(A report in April 1783 has Major Bernard being appointed Lt-Col. of the 86th, "now stationed at York," and "Master of the Jewel Office" (Leeds Intelligencer)).

Lots of suggestions have been made about the Beaumont group picture being altered to show his new uniform after some promotion or other. The picture may indeed have been still in Romney's studio when Bernard was promoted to Lt-Colonel.

George and Elizabeth Bernard had no children. But he is known to have had a daughter by another woman, mentioned in his will or codicils which he made many years after the Beaumont painting was done. See my recent notes about the picture of RHB.

The Ormesby copy of the family group portrait

The full size copy (mentioned above) went to the Pennyman family of Ormesby Hall, one of whom in 1882 married a daughter of HFB.

I do not know when the copy was done, or why, or who did it, or when it went to Ormesby.

Ormesby Hall is now in the care of the National Trust, whose online picture catalogue gives Thomas the middle name William. Can someone check the "Leeds Mercury" report of his death? I have a note that it gives him that middle name, but is it right? I don't think he had any middle name. None is assigned to him in the report of his death in the "Leeds Intelligencer" of 19 Nov. 1782.

H.F. Beaumont's notes on the subjects of the picture

HFB is quoted by Ward & Roberts (1904) as saying that the subjects from left to right are:- RHB, Charles, George Bernard, Elizabeth, and Thomas, and that the "portrait within a portrait" is another one of RHB. I think this is completely wrong. One factor in this is that the identification of Thomas on the left is really quite certain. Another is that the figure on the right is missing from an early sketch. A third is that HFB omits John entirely, though of all of them he was most closely connected to John, in that he had inherited Whitley (and the Romney picture) from John's grandson. So I have preferred to discard HFB's notes entirely and start afresh.

This note made 7 March 2018.
Revised 11/12 and 19 March 2018
With acknowledgments and further thanks to Alex Kidson
Note added 22 April 2020 with reference to Leeds Intelligencer 19 Nov. 1782.

This footnote added 29-30 Nov. 2020. As to John Beaumont's military career. His Regiment, the 29th, was at Boston, Mass., in 1769 and 1770, remaining in America for some time, then returning to England. There is evidence that John was at Whitley Hall in July 1773. Perhaps he was then on leave. From the 1774 "Army List," (p.83) it would appear he did not join the Regiment until November 1770; so he may never have gone to America.  It would have been an interesting period of service, catching him up in the events of the "Boston Massacre" of March 1770, after which his immediately superior officer James Bassett, and a Captain Preston, were jailed and tried.  The 29th was sent to Canada early in 1776. Whether John Beaumont went with them then seems unlikely, since his son is supposed to have been born in May 1777, presumably in London. See H.Everard, History of Thomas Farrington's Regiment. This gives general facts about the Regiment and mentions John once, as being an Ensign aged 24 in December 1773, with three years service. Since John was apparently born in 1752 he must have over-stated his age (if it is he, and I think it is!).

Portrait of Thomas Beaumont of Whitley 1751-1782

The subject of the picture was one of the younger brothers of R H Beaumont (RHB) and also brother of Mrs Elizabeth Bernard mentioned in the previous piece.

Thomas was born on 13 July 1751 and served as a Cornet (1769), promoted to Lieutenant (1772) in the 4th Regiment of Dragoons.  He died unmarried on 10 November 1782 and I think that he was buried at Kirkheaton.

The writing on the back of the frame indicates that the picture was at Whitley Hall in the time of RHB. It is similar to RHB's hand and what makes me sure, is that he wrote genealogical information in exactly that way.

It reads:- Thomas Beaumont son of Rich: Beaumont of Whitley Hall Esquire and Elizabeth the da. of Wm Holt of Grizzlehurst and Little Mitton co. Lanc. ob. 10 Nov.1782 at Whitley aet. 32 born   July 1751.

The picture shows him as standing at the left in the portrait of his family by George Romney.

L-R: Thomas, RHB, John, Elizabeth, George Bernard, Charles. I make these identifications
after some consideration and I am aware that different ideas have been expressed.
I will do another piece shortly to discuss this.

The Romney group portrait was sold by the Whitley Beaumont family to the nation in the early c20.  A copy of it is at Ormesby Hall in the care of the National Trust.

Having discussed this with Alex Kidson who is the author of currently the most definitive work on Romney, I think my picture of Thomas is a copy of his head that was done soon after, or even at the time, the group portrait was finished.

Look for a later piece from me about the identification of the other people in the group portrait.

Now read on .....

During the 1920s a young girl called Margaret Mayo became interested in the Whitley Beaumont family after seeing the group portrait. She adopted (in so many words) the people in the picture and researched them, I would say, almost obsessively. In due course Margaret Mayo married and became called Shepherd.

In 1955 the subject picture belonged to a Mr J.I. Rodway of Ascot. He wrote to Country Life about it because he had recognised the figure from the group portrait at the National Gallery.

"A Familiar Face

Sir: Regular visitors to the National Gallery will recognise a familiar face in the pastel portrait of which I enclose a photograph, though they may not find it easy to place. It does, in fact, resemble very closely in all respects, including the pose, that of the young man in the red military coat who stands on the left of the group in Romney's painting of the Beaumont family. The pastel has been in my possession for over ten years, but the connection between the two portraits was not known until a few weeks ago when my daughter happened to be studying the Romneys in the gallery and made the discovery.

The curators of the gallery have since examined the pastel drawing with considerable interest, especially because an inscription in an unmistakably contemporary hand on the back of the frame identifies the sitter. He was Thomas Beaumont who died in 1782, aged 31, the son of Richard Beaumont, of Whitley Beaumont. This piece of evidence has made a useful contribution to the accuracy of the historical record, because apart from the female figure, the individual identifications in the Beaumont family group have hitherto, in the words of the catalogue, been "quite confused"

Having lived in the pleasant company of Thomas Beaumont for so long and having now "met" his family, I should be glad to know some more about him. Perhaps one of your readers may be able to help. How, for instance, did he meet his end and why is he depicted in military uniform when he was not commissioned until 1780, after Romney had completed the portrait? [but see above (EMB)] What is the uniform he is wearing? Lastly, who made the pastel drawing, which is unsigned, but is obviously a work of some merit?

It has been suggested that this may have been copied from Romney's painting after the death of the subject or on behalf of a relative, but there is no evidence to rule out the possibility of its being a sketch by Romney himself.

John I. Rodway, Eldoret, Ascot, Berkshire."

Mrs Shepherd got in touch with him. My uncle also wrote to Country Life, and Mrs Shepherd then got in touch with him and thus with my father.

Mrs Shepherd bought the picture from Mr Rodway, who delivered it to her over lunch at an Hotel in central London.

Much later Mrs Shepherd told me that Mr Rodway had bought the picture from a person - I was never given a name -  who had been employed as a butler at Tetworth, the Ascot house of H.F. Beaumont (1833-1913) - or his son -  the then owner of Whitley. This person took the picture from the attic (by inference, because his wages were unpaid......). The butler then gave the picture to a friend who was a gamekeeper. Mr Rodway was a firearms expert and had become involved in a case in which the son of the gamekeeper needed some expert testimony, and the picture was then given to Mr Rodway as grateful thanks for his assistance.

My parents and I went to Mrs Shepherd's house in Buckinghamshire to see the picture, and afterwards she kindly sent a fire engine which I had left behind.

T. Beaumont to Mrs Shepherd

Later, my father bought the picture from her for the same price as she had given Mr Rodway, and in 1966 my father gave it to me. I have now been its owner for over fifty years.

Margaret Shepherd's own story, interwoven with that of her adopted brothers and sister, is told in her own words in "A Journey into Time Past" a copy of which she gave me in November 1990.

The subject picture is one of three that I offered on loan to Kirklees Museums in 2015 but which due to the budget cuts they were unable to take.

This note dated 3 March 2018.
Revised 12 March 2018 with thanks and acknowledgments to Alex Kidson.

Portrait of Richard Henry Beaumont of Whitley (d.1810)

Amongst the portraits is this one:

The label reads:-

Richard Henry Beaumont F.S.A.

Whitley, Yorks.

Obit 1810

For a long time, I thought it was rather odd that our side of the family should have a portrait of this gentleman. We do not have a portrait of our ancestor Richard Beaumont of Birmingham (1761-1828) and so I thought it might be him, and part of the muddle about his middle name, touched on in a recent piece here. It is an unassuming portrait, not a grand one, and I thought - a Beaumont of Whitley would be grander than this.

Now, however, on balance I think the label is correct.

So who was R.H. Beaumont of Whitley, and why would we have ended up with a portrait of him? Here goes.

First here is how he was related to us:- his aunt Frances Beaumont 1704-1735 (one of his father's sisters) married our George Beaumont of Darton, so he was first cousin of the clergyman of St.Nicholas.

Now R.H. Beaumont FSA (Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries) (I will call him RHB) was born in 1749 making him five years older than his first cousin once removed Thomas Beaumont the clergyman (Thomas here), and in looking at the portrait I think we would say that the style of it is about 1800, and fits with a person of that age.

The picture has been attributed to the well-known artist Sir William Beechey, and whilst I am not a great believer in valuers' attributions, that is possible.

Also we do know that RHB and Thomas knew each other. Their acquaintance must have begun by 1793 the year in which RHB served as High Sheriff (of Yorkshire) and Thomas was appointed the chaplain of the 84th Regiment, whose Colonel was RHB's brother-in-law George Bernard.

This is about the time when Thomas sold his estate at Chapelthorpe and built his own house at East Bridgford. We know that RHB visited Thomas, as he wrote a letter saying that he had had "an unpleasant ride home" and sending "comps" to the ladies (papers in Box 1). I think that was in the 1790s and that he had stayed with Thomas at Chapelthorpe.  He also sent an elaborate and accurately-written family tree which demonstrated that he, should there be any doubt, was the rightful owner of Whitley, with its vast rent income. 

RHB's sister was called Elizabeth. In 1774 when aged 21 she had married the Anglo-Irish Army officer George Bernard, and they had a house called Heaton Lodge on the edge of the Whitley estate, near Colne Bridge in the Calder valley. 

RHB had many portraits in his house (Whitley Hall), and as part of his antiquarian pursuits he labelled them on the back, typically writing in black ink on the wood itself, the back of the frame. I have one that is marked in that way, but the picture in question is not. Moreover another picture, said to be of him, and said to have come from Whitley, and to be by Romney, was sold in London in 1932. Why would he have had two pictures of himself in his house?

There seems no likelihood, given the way Whitley Hall devolved after RHB died (in 1810) of any of the contents coming to our side of the family, and yet it looks very much as though the picture has belonged in our family since soon after that date. 

I now suspect that this picture came not from Whitley Hall, but from Heaton Lodge, and here is why:

Elizabeth Bernard died in 1814. The Bernards had had no children, and perhaps were not living together (a letter dated 1811 shows George at Filey (Box 1/129)). He had an acquaintance called Elizabeth Proctor, who with one Frances (Fanny) Gray - evidently his daughter, but not by his wife - were the main beneficiaries under his will and codicils (PROB 11/1631/418).

George Bernard died in May 1820, and the contents of Heaton Lodge were soon being sold.

Leeds Mercury and other papers, from Sept. 1820

Quite possibly Rev. Thomas Beaumont - now of East Bridgford - bought some things either privately or at the auction. I can see it suiting him to have a portrait of a man he remembered and respected, who was also a Yorkshire aristocrat and quite closely related to him.

On the back of our picture as already noted there is nothing that appears to have been written by RHB. What there is, apart from some modern labels, is an old paper label reading "[blank, torn off] Henry Beaumont F.S.A., Whitley [more, too faint to read]" and a less old label reading "R.H. Beaumont."

The label screwed to the front of the frame is in the same style as on a number of other pictures and merely tends to confirm that this one was in the same house as those others (i.e. East Bridgford Hill).

In 2015 I offered this picture (and others) on loan to RHB's "local" museum and gallery, Kirklees. Their curator was interested, but said the budget cuts prevented that.

I deposited photographs of this and other pictures with Nottinghamshire Archives in 1998 or 1999 (this one:- DD/2126/1/3).

As a postscript to the above:
My uncle once told me that one of the family portraits, showing a man in a red coat who was thought to be General Bernard, had gone missing. This raises the possibility that Thomas bought not one, but two pictures from Heaton Lodge.

This note dated 1 March 2018