George Beaumont - Land Surveyor (3) - 1829 case

In the previous two pieces I introduced George as a land surveyor and said something about his work for Robert Harvey in 1815 and 1816.

Mr Harvey's co-Commissioner on the Teddesley Enclosure was called Robert Harvey Wyatt. A principal landowner in the area was E.J. Littleton Esq., whose "seat" was actually at Teddesley, and who was a local Member of Parliament.

Some years later Mr Littleton had Robert Harvey Wyatt prosecuted for fraud in connection with the Teddesley Enclosure.

Title page

It was alleged that Harvey and Wyatt had grossly overcharged their own time, in cahoots with a man named Samuel Davenport who worked for them locally and was himself handsomely paid. The sums involved were certainly large. Just as a "for instance," in early April 1816 at about the time George Beaumont was trying to get his outstanding expenses paid, Mr Harvey and Mr Wyatt drew out £250 each and Mr Davenport was paid £400.

Mr Davenport, often described as Mr Harvey's clerk, seems to have taken the credit for some of the plans as surveyor, but reading the case I was not sure whether it was established if Mr Davenport actually did survey work "in the field," so to speak.

By the time the case came to court in 1829 Robert Harvey had died, which made conspiracy between him and Mr Wyatt inherently hard to prove. Mr Wyatt produced influential references as to his own character. He was entirely acquitted.

During the trial, and responding initially to a question from the defence counsel, Samuel Davenport had confirmed that a certain "Mr Beaumont" had been employed on the case, and that he had not done it properly, so his work had to be done again. The point that the defence wanted to make was that the Enclosure account had not been charged twice for this - that was a demonstration of Harvey and Wyatt's honesty. The prosecution seems never to have tried to establish exactly what work "Mr Beaumont" had done, exactly what was wrong with it, or how much Mr Harvey had paid for it from his own pocket.

This is the question - which came out of the blue from Sir James Scarlett, Counsel for the defenc):- ..... "do you know whether a person of the name of Beaumont was employed, who made an ineffectual survey which was not charged?" Samuel Davenport said "I know a person of the name of Beaumont measured a part of the land; the survey was found inaccurate, and it was re-measured."

Then in response to a leading question, Mr Davenport confirmed he had re-measured it himself.

The Judge then immediately asked "What was he paid for it?" [meaning Beaumont], and Davenport's reply was "He was not paid out of the Enclosure Fund." This appeared to satisfy the Judge though it was not an answer to his question!

Sir James Scarlett then asked another leading question:- "He was paid by those who employed him?" and Davenport replied that "his pay was out of Mr Harvey's private pocket."

And a newspaper account of the trial summarises this (putting the words into Samuel Davenport's mouth): "A Mr Beaumont made an ineffectual survey of part of the land, which was obliged to be done over again, but he was paid by Mr Harvey, and only one survey was charged upon the fund."

All this begs questions such as how Samuel Davenport could possibly know what payments the late Mr Harvey had made out of his private pocket so long ago.

Richard Court (the surveyor to whom George had been articled from 1811-1815) was also called, and he said that "Beaumont" had been his "apprentice."

It seems George was not asked to give evidence at all. Nor was his work presented in evidence eg for the purpose of distinguishing bad work from good, or of saying exactly what he did.

It was said that "Beaumont" had surveyed 1,200 acres but does not say where, or when. But George's own account is that he surveyed 1,600 acres for the Teddesley Enclosure during the autumn of 1815.

Also George's account does not mention Mr Davenport, who one might expect to have been the man giving him his day to day instructions. Neither does George's account mention Mr Parkes, who Davenport said was assisting him from the beginning, nor Mr Palmer or Mr Buck, who were also said to be engaged on the outdoor surveying.

George's account shows that after his work on the Enclosure, he was given other assignments for Robert Harvey, on Lord Willoughby's and Mr Swinnerton's land, and these are not the actions of a dissatisfied employer. Perhaps there were defects in his work which were not immediately apparent, but another possible scenario - call me a cynic - is that not paying George (or only paying his expenses) enabled someone else to charge the Enclosure Fund for that much, perhaps without re-surveying it at all.

The prosecution does not seem to have tried very hard. For example Richard Court gave evidence as to what a surveyor would be paid - and he said that if he was his employer, he would not charge twice for poor work. Mr Court's general credibility would have been seen in a different light if the prosecution had done its work properly, as the Jury could have been told that Richard Court [too] was something of a fraudster! For in 1820 a judge had set aside (that means declared null and void) a purchase by Mr Court of property from one of his clients, because he had not given his client the full facts and had paid less than the property was worth. After this, Mr Court was an "Insolvent Debtor" in 1823, his creditors only receiving two shillings in the pound of what he owed them.

That seems to be where this story ends.

By 1829 when the Teddesley Enclosure case was heard, George was married and living at Newark or nearby Winthorpe. He was conducting the Land Agent / surveying practice which he and then his son George and grandson Charles would continue at East Bridgford and latterly in Nottingham until about 1904.

Sources include:-
This archive Box 1-019 and see previous pieces.

Report of the Trial: The King (on the Prosecution of E. J. Littleton, Esq., M.P.) versus Robert Harvey Wyatt, for a Conspiracy (1829). This gives the proceedings in full with accounts at the end.

The case of Oliver v. Court (1820), reported in Reports of Cases Argued and Determined on the Equity Side of the Court of Exchequer, published by Edmund Robert Daniell (1824).

London Gazette 3 June and 7 October 1823 (as to Richard Court).

Staffordshire Advertiser 11 April 1829 (summary report of the trial in R.v. Robert Harvey Wyatt).

EMB 19 April 2020