Another red herring (2 of 3) (a 17th century copying error)

This is Part 2. Part 1 should be read first.

Did Roger Constable of Chester / Roger de Lacy (call him what you will) go on the Third Crusade?

A statement that he did was made by William Dugdale in his printed "Baronage" in the 1670s. I believe this is the earliest such statement in print. Dugdale said:-

This Roger was (Joreval. 1248. l. 3) at the siege of Acon (in the Holy Land,) with King Richard the First, An. 1192. (4 Rich. 1.) and (Joreval. 1248. l. 3) likewise in that sharp fight against the Saracens, who endeavored to relieve it; as also at the siege (Mat. Paris, p. 30?) and taking of Damieta.

There are other, later, books on Roger that do not repeat this (1).

I suspect that Thomas Dunham Whitaker, writing as he did in the late 1790s (2), may well have had a copy of an early edition of Dugdale's Baronage and taken this information from it, omitting the statement that Roger was also at the siege of Damietta because he [Whitaker] knew that at least that part of it must be wrong (3).

So what of the rest of it? "Acon" or "Achon" means Acre, a long siege of which was ended by the Crusaders in July 1191.

The source given by Dugdale is "Joreval 1248 line 3." By that he meant a chronicle which had been printed in 1652, in a book of which I should suppose Dugdale himself must have had a copy. The printed book is Twysden, "Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores Decem" [ten chroniclers], where in line 3 of Column 1248 is indeed mention of "Roger de Lacy" as one of the knights involved in a particular engagement - corresponding, I feel sure, to the "sharp fight" mentioned by Dugdale.

This chronicle, printed in 1652, had come from an abbot of Jervaulx, hence "Joreval," and it appears, but don't quote me as to the details, to be in this particular respect a version or copy of something at one time said to be by Geoffrey de Vinsauf, nowadays thought to have been written in the early thirteenth century by "Richard of Holy Trinity."

It is a story of a surprise attack by the "Turks," memorable in one way because the Normans were caught with their trousers down (in a sense).  The king himself therefore, and many others with him, on the urgency of the moment, proceeded without their cuishes to the fight, some even without their breeches, and they armed themselves in the best manner they could ..... This from a modern and anonymous translation (Cambridge, Ontario, 2001).

The same story is available in various other editions, and the key point is that most of those give the name as Roger "de Sacy." Thus, on its own, the source which I think was used by Dugdale and fed the information to Thomas Dunham Whitaker, is not remotely authoritative.

In the table below, the left hand column shows names mentioned in Hollinshed's 1577 chronicle in context of the Third Crusade fairly generally, whilst the other five columns give the names of the knights involved in accounts of the specific "sharp fight" incident (4).

And yet this appears to be the only story naming our Roger in the Crusade. It appears to be based on a copying error. Furthermore a Roger "de Sacy" certainly was a crusade companion of king Richard (5).

So I am not convinced. Please read Part 3 where there is a story that Roger Constable of Chester was actually in England at the time.

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

(1) For example Ormerod, Cheshire, vol 1 page 510 in the 1819 edition does not mention this where it would if it was going to! William Beamont (no relation, I think) in his 1873 History of Halton and Norton, at p.20, states that Roger was present, with Richard Coeur de Lion, at that historic event, the storming of Acre, but cites no reference, and a modern book quoting that agrees with me that there is no supporting evidence (Kathryn Hurlock and Paul Oldfield, editors: Crusading and Pilgrimage in the Norman World (Boydell Press, 2015), p.135 in an article by Andrew Abram).

(2) See part 1.

(3) That siege of Damietta was some years after Roger's death in fact. Nevertheless the Damietta bit found its way into at least one other book (Foss' Judges of England; but this doesn't cite the authority). Incidentally, Roger's son John de Lacy gave a charter at Damietta in 1218 (Pontefract Chartulary no. XXI).

(4) The "Joreval" version is especially corrupt. "Count Henry" and "the earl of Leicester" are two different people, whilst Henry "the Teuton" is the standard-bearer of the King. "R" or "Regis" has been extended as Reginald, making one person into two. The Hollinshed information is extracted from the text made available by the "Hollinshed Project." "Poole" is a sensible translation from "Etang!" The other texts are from publications found by Google or from my old notes of printed texts. I think the incident took place at Jaffa rather than Acre.

(5) There are a number of other primary or near-primary source mentions of Roger de Sacy in the specific context of the Third Crusade. His name occurs with spelling variations such as Sassy, Satya, Sacie etc.. Anyone interested could refer to the Itinerary of Richard I by Lionel Landon (Pipe Roll Society, 1935) and to a detailed article (in French) by Francoise Vielliard called "Richard Coeur de Lion et son Entourage Normand" (2002), which can be read on persee.fr.


EMB June 2020

Another red herring - the third crusade (1 of 3)

I am tackling another red herring - the story that William de Beaumont went on the Third Crusade with Roger Constable of Chester (alias Roger de Lacy).

I will take this in three parts:-
1. Whether this man, the first of the Yorkshire Beaumonts, went on the Crusade;
2. Where the story of Roger going on the Crusade seems to have come from;
3. What Roger seems actually to have been doing during the time of the Third Crusade.

The story of the Yorkshire Beaumonts starts with a William, who was an associate of this Roger. This article is not about his background or about his connexions with Roger. It is simply about whether this William de Beaumont went on the Crusade, most specifically whether he went with Roger.

The full story appears in Thomas Dunham Whitaker's History of Whalley, and was copied from there by various local history authors (1), and now numerous online resources.

The story is that at the time of coming into his inheritance [i.e. the Pontefract honour] (in 1193-1194) Roger....

... was now lately returned from the Holy Land, whither he had accompanied Richard I 

in the third crusade, having assisted at the memorable siege of Acre, where so many of 

his countrymen and equals perished.......

and then a paragraph further down:

“In this crusade he was accompanied by William de Bellomonte, ancestor of the Beaumonts of Whitley Beaumont, in Yorkshire, who received from his patron the grant of ten oxgangs of land in Huddersfield, and who, from the frequency with which he attests the charters of Roger, appears to have been almost his inseparable companion for the remainder of their lives. It was the practice of those days for dependents to adopt, with some distinction, the armorial bearings of their patrons; it has always been usual to add to them some charge in memory of signal achievements, and thus a lion rampant in the shield of the Beaumonts attests their ancient connexion with the house of Lacy, and an orl of crescents alludes (not obscurely) to some triumph over the standard of Mohammed” (2).

I suspect that this story also appears in the earlier editions of Whitaker's book, though I haven't seen them. It would have been written shortly before 1800. (3)

Title page

Whitaker lived at Holme, between Burnley and Todmorden. He was very interested in and knowledgeable about the enormous parish of Whalley, indeed Holme was part of it and had been his family's home for hundreds of years. Perhaps he was a little in thrall to R.H. Beaumont of Whitley, both as an antiquarian and because RHB was the owner of Little Mitton, which is also covered in the book. RHB's journeys between his two estates would have followed the valley of the Calder, passing Whitaker's house at Holme.

T.D. Whitaker (from his History of Whalley)

Whitaker was the younger by about ten years. The 1818 edition of course was produced after RHB's death (4) and specifically Whitaker does NOT say that he obtained the crusade story from him. Nor I believe is any mention of it to be found amongst RHB's papers (5).

If Whitaker's account is not the earliest time this story comes, will someone please tell me.

Could William de Beaumont have gone anyway? This is a tough one, and I don't think we will ever know. Without any evidence it seems silly to believe that he did. Another theory (it is no more) will be mentioned in the third of these articles. My firm impression is that where we do know the names of crusaders, these tend to be great lords, not minor knights. And was he even a knight?

The name Beaumont occurs often in the regions from which crusaders came, so at any given time there are bound to be several Williams. If one of these were found to have gone on the Third Crusade, it would be a question of looking at the context, such as names and backgrounds of his companions, before concluding who that was. Even then, it would be circumstantial evidence, which would be somewhere between very convincing and very slight!

However to conclude this part, I don't think Whitaker's story is of any value as evidence, and I have no other reason to suppose that this William de Beaumont went on the Third Crusade.

In Parts 2 and 3 I will consider evidence as to whether Roger Constable of Chester went.
..................

(1) For example Pratt, History of Cawthorne, p.23. Also the 1827 account of Kirkstall Abbey.

(2) Quoted from the 1818 edition of Whitaker’s History of Whalley, p.178. The same text is at p.242 of Vol. 1 in the Fourth edition, 1872. No source or authority is given.

Added this 7 Nov. 2020: Another version, this from George Fox's (c.1827) History of Pontefract, p.92:-  Roger succeeded to the estates, and took the name of Lacy. He continued to fight against the Mahometans, accompanied by his confidential friend, William de Bellamonte..... Roger was present at the memorable siege of Acre...... [and so on, with no authority given, of course].

(3) In the 1818 edition Whitaker states that 19 years have elapsed since the publication of the first edition, and that he has rectified various mistakes. But:-
A. The William/Roger crusade story comes in a section dealing with the Lordship of the Honour of Clitheroe (which went with Pontefract), and it seems so odd to have mentioned any Beaumont there.
B. The number of oxgangs (or bovates) later granted to William was twelve, according to other sources which appear to cite from the charter itself. An unimportant error in itself, which I mention only to show that it is not the most careful passage of writing.
C. I fear historical conclusions based on heraldry tend to be very unreliable. In the 1872 edition of the History of Whalley, vol. 1 p.243, is a note from John Gough Nichols dismissing any connexion between crescents and crusades, and I agree so much, but not with the rest of it. Nichols says there that the lion of the Beaumonts is against a blue (azure) background with a lion surrounded by fleurs de lys, but that is the arms of an unrelated and rather grander family. The arms &c of the Yorkshire Beaumonts had a red background and the lion is surrounded by said crescents, here seen with the famous bulls head - all of which is of much later date than the Third Crusade.

From the Beaumont of Whitley etc Family Tree which was printed c.1873
This does not mention the Third Crusade. It starts by stating that the name is derived
from a place in France on the river Sarte (Sarthe), which in the case of this family is most likely wrong!

(4) Published in his History of Craven (1812), is Whitaker's obituary of RHB, who was "..... an excellent judge of forgeries....."

(5) RHB contributed information to Whitaker, clearly.  The book includes plates of several of RHB's family which he must have contributed and which seem to me not relevant to Whalley or Mitton at all! Much information about the friendship between the two is contained in the Introduction to the 1872 edition. The Whitley archive contains (DD/WBC/239) a letter from a genealogist or herald perhaps of the c17 which mentions the crescents but makes no connexion to the crusade. I have seen two or three other theories as to the origin of these "demi-lunes" - all much as likely or as unlikely.

EMB June 2020

Added 16 December 2020. 

I have just come across the 2018 Thesis (Canterbury Christchurch University) by Andrew David Connell on the Constables of Chester, in which is stated on page 168 that William de Beaumont had served with Roger Constable of Chester on crusade under Richard I. The source cited for this (or for an early grant to William) is Bodleian Library MS Dodsworth 155 fo. 151r.  I shall check again but the thesis seems to make no other mention of Roger in the crusade. I am sceptical and am trying to check the source. It seems to be part of what is referred to in the Falconer Madan Catalogue Volume 2 part 2 at page 959 (deeds of Richard Beaumont Esq of Mirfield). Unless there is evidence that Roger Constable of Chester went on the third crusade I am unlikely to believe that William did!

The Oaks - a final word (I hope)

About three years ago I put up a piece

https://beaumontarchives.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-beaumonts-house-at-darton.html

in which I really hoped to lay to rest the old red herring about the Beaumonts' house at Darton being "the Oaks." And in 2019 I added further evidence at the bottom of that piece. I have also added a piece about the "concluding chapter" at Darton Hall.

At least one Beaumont seems to have lived at a place called "Oaks" but that is in Almondbury, near Huddersfield. I refer to the fifteenth century Lawrence Beaumont of the Oaks, who has nothing whatever to do with Darton.

Almondbury lies to the south-east of Huddersfield. Oaks Lane has become called Fleminghouse Lane. Here is the location

National Library of Scotland - "side by side"

and here is a house there, which looks like it has stood there a few years!

Google street view 21 May 2020

"Lawrence Beaumounte of the Oaks, yeoman" was one of the several members of the Beaumont party or clan who were involved in a feud with the Kaye family in about 1470, being mentioned in the settlement award but without explaining his role. (1)

As Laurence Beaumond, he and his son Oliver were granted a 20 year lease of "a tenement in Almondbury called the Okes" at a rent of 26s 8d in 1484. (2)

He also had a daughter called Joan, who married John Baildon in about 1465. Here he is Lawrence Bemond "de les Okes." (3)

And he also had a son Robert, for one such (described as a "scoler" but not sounding like a very studious one) was said to have broken into Thomas Beaumont's house (Whitley Hall seems to be meant) in 1484 and stolen £20 in money, aided and abetted (so it was said) by Lawrence Beaumont of Okes in Almondbury (his father) and others. (4)

No primary source tells me for sure where Lawrence Beaumont of the Oaks fits in, but the family tree mentions three Lawrences. The first being the younger son of Roger Beaumont of Crosland Foss, the second being one of the many younger sons of Henry Beaumont of Lascelles Hall, and the third being the nephew of the first. Chronologically the third one is too late, so he may well be the first or second.

In his 1796 pedigree which is part of this Archive, R.H. Beaumont identified Lawrence of the Oaks as the second of those three. He did not give his reasoning but simply wrote that he settled at a place called ye Oaks in the Parish of Almonbury, as supposed, and marryed and had Issue as sup[posed]
Not being what he would have thought of as gentry, these people were somewhat off RHB's radar.

(1) DD/WBL/12 in the Whitley Beaumont archives now in West Yorks Archives. The catalogue is all that I have seen, but it is a detailed summary of the judgment or award settling the dispute. The dispute goes under various names on the internet such as the "Hall Bower murders." I think it more likely to have been a long-running family feud rather than a single pitched battle.

(2) Spencer Stanhope archives StSp/4/11/4/2. SpSt/4/11/4/1 of 1321 also refers to "Okes in Almondbury." Information is from the catalogue.

(3) William Paley Baildon, "Baildon and the Baildons," vol. 2 p.355, citing Wakefield Court Rolls. Mr Baildon thought that Lawrence of the Oaks was son of Roger.

(4) Baildon, op & vol cit, p.356, citing K [Kings] B [Bench] Ancient Indictments, bundle 355, no.9.

.........
In the first (2019) edition of her book "Beaumont Crusaders and Campaigners," (pp.187-188) the author whose pen name is Lucy la Zouche assumed that "Oaks" (in context of Lawrence and others) was the one at Darton, and fell into various other traps. Presumably this is all due to the old muddles, and thus an entirely understandable series of mistakes. She goes on to reproduce some of the old stuff about Oaks and Darton, which I have been doing my best to put right. Moreover I am well aware that in pointing to errors made by other people, I may myself be wrong, or get something else wrong in the next sentence.

EMB
22 May 2020

George Beaumont of Crosland 1757-1807

I put up a piece in March 2018 about George and his brother, so do please look at that as well, but I have done this piece today to try to put the record straight as there is so much inaccurate information to be found online. Surely there is more than mere genealogy?

George was the second son (third child) of Revd George who at the time was the curate at Gedling, which was where George was christened in 1757. His great-uncle Rev. Thomas Beaumont of Bulwell / Nottingham left him £600 in Calder Navigation stock in 1771.

When he was about 22, in 1779, already described as a merchant at Leeds, George married Jenny or Jane Cope, at Hemsworth near Pontefract. Leeds was where his mother had hailed from, so there were contacts there, no doubt. [15 Jan. 2021 - see note added at bottom]

George and Jenny were at Timble Bridge, Leeds when they had a daughter Mary Ann but she died in 1781, and Jenny also died the following year.

George's business connections were with people called Ridsdale, and he married Ann Ridsdale in 1784. [see note at bottom] At about that time he was handling the proposed letting of Chapelthorpe Hall, which had devolved to his elder brother Rev. Thomas and had become vacant by reason of the departure of tenants, most recently Richard Beatson. I think in fact Chapelthorpe was not relet at this time, but that the house was retained "in hand" and that Rev. Thomas visited from Nottinghamshire periodically.

In 1788 a bad fire affected the business of Messrs Ridsdale and Beaumont at Leeds.

A couple of years later George and his wife were at Chapelthorpe when R.H. Beaumont of Whitley ("RHB") paid a visit (his letter after the visit is in this Archive). This might be the contact that led to RHB providing George with a house at Crosland and financial support for his business.  Crosland was part of the Whitley estate and was a place of particular significance in both fact and legend in the history of the Beaumont family (going right back to about 1300 or earlier).

George's mother Betty died in 1793, and he proved her Will, but I don't think there was a lot more money from that quarter.

George was an Officer in the Volunteer Corps at Leeds, being made up to Major in 1795. He was also borrowing money from his elder brother and from William Huthwaite in Nottingham who was related to Thomas' wife.

Walter Beaumont, one of the younger brothers, came into the business, which still had premises in Leeds. The house at Crosland (Crosland Hall) was quite prestigious. RHB gave Walter  a lease of Healey House there, and though the brothers obtained a patent for a certain mixture to be used in the preparation of sheep or lambs wool “for various purposes” - and another patent, I think, for some kind of oil - I doubt if their venture was very successful.

In fact I think they were living beyond their means.

George's mother-in-law Mrs Ridsdale died at Crosland Hall in 1805, and George himself died in 1807, when Ann renounced probate in favour of Francis Ridsdale, described as the "principal creditor."

Shortly afterwards Walter Beaumont was made bankrupt. Ann's death, at Horsforth, was reported in 1811.

George and Ann had several daughters:-

• Frances Ann, who died aged about eight.
• Charlotte, who died aged ten or eleven.
• Jane, who died aged about five.
• Susan, or Susanna Maria, who did not marry. She lived at Ockbrook in Derbyshire when she died, in 1842.
• Mary, who also did not marry, who died at Winsley near Ripley (the home of one of the Ridsdales) in 1823.
• Everilde, who also did not marry, who died in 1847. She had gone to live at Gedling, where (coincidentally) her aunt (Fanny Beaumont, Mrs Elliott) lived, at Gedling House. After Fanny died, Everilde continued to live at Gedling, I think. There is said to be a memorial to her in the church there, but it was locked when I went to visit.
• Ann[e] Elizabeth. She and her sisters had substantial legacies (when they were 21) from their great-uncle (by marriage) Rev John Walter, of Bingham. She in 1828 married Henry Huthwaite and they lived at Hoveringham not far from Gedling. He was much older than her and I suspect was closely related to her uncle Rev Thomas Beaumont of East Bridgford's wife. Henry Huthwaite was a senior army officer who had returned from India. They had several children. After Henry Huthwaite died (1854) she went to Somerset and/or Cornwall where in due course (aged 67) she married 35-year old Thomas Read Guerin (about whom I have considerable uncertainty), but Brighton was where she ended her days in 1883. One of her sons was Rev. Thomas Walter Huthwaite 1835-1902.

...........

Sources for all the above are the papers in this Archive, West Yorkshire Archives (from Whitley Hall), newspapers (British Newspaper Archive), London Gazette, Family Search site, and so on.

As always I don't claim to get everything right..... I am open to the idea that the family collective memory might be wrong eg if information has been suppressed. For example about bankruptcy or mental illness. But I'd like to know any evidence!

Somewhere I saw it suggested that George lived until 1832 and died in Middlesex, or indeed in Manchester. and these things are apt to get a life of their own, but without credible evidence I'd say that must be other people. Similarly as to George and Ann having a son called George. The name is found so frequently that records of births, marriages, and deaths on their own are not enough!

EMB St George's Day 23 April 2020

Note added 15/16 January 2021:- I have discovered that both George Beaumont's wives were granddaughters of Joseph Green, merchant of Leeds, who died in early 1771. Joseph had two daughters - one had married Thomas Cope and the other Francis Ridsdale (senior). The main sources for this are Joseph Green's will and the Leeds (St.Peter) Parish Register. 

Thomas Cope and Mary Green had two daughters, Jane or Jenny, and Harriet or Harriot. Mary had died before Joseph Green made his will (Nov. 1765). This Jane / Jenny was to become George Beaumont's first wife.

Francis Ridsdale and Ann Green had two children, Ann and Francis. This Francis Ridsdale (junior) was a main influence in George's life. His sister Ann was to become George's second wife.

George's parents George and Betty had married at Leeds back in 1753, that was where she came from, and she was called Green. I would be surprised if she was not somehow related to Joseph but presumably not very closely, otherwise these marriages of her son might have been frowned upon. Anyway this hints at close connections being maintained with her relatives or connections in or near Leeds.

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

George Beaumont - Land Surveyor (2) - Work for Robert Harvey Esq in 1815-1816

In the previous post I said that George had been working for Robert Harvey. This post contains an edited version of George's account (Box 1-019 in this Archive), with two maps showing the places at which he worked.

I do not know Staffordshire and if I have made misidentifications I hope someone will tell me!

To introduce this I'd like to say that George was a very young man who seems to have been working with little or no supervision, for a man whose character does not (to me, anyway) come over well. George had to make significant payments out of his own pocket in order to do the work -  for labourers' wages, accommodation, travel, and even for the paper on which to draw his plans.

Incidentally Robert Harvey lived at Dunstall in Staffordshire.

Some years later George's work was criticised in a court case relating to the Teddesley Enclosure, which is what George was working on at the start of the period, the autumn of 1815. The bare facts are that it was alleged that fraud had been committed by Robert Harvey (who had died) and others. The defence, seeking to show their characters in the best possible light, examined witnesses who said that Mr Harvey had paid George out of his own pocket for defective work, rather than charge it to the account of the Enclosure. But this was not proven. George was apparently not asked to say whether he had in fact been paid by anyone, and it seems to me quite possible that money that should have been paid to George, ended up in someone else's pocket!

I will say something about this court case in a third piece, to follow this one.

........................
Edited summary of Box 1/019 papers placed into approximate date order:-
Information in italics comes from elsewhere.

October and November, 1815 until December 4

George surveyed and plotted about 1600 acres of land in the Manors of Otherton, Lyne Hill (he wrote Lynall), Pillaton (he wrote Pileton), and Penkridge, on account of the Teddesley Enclosure. No expenses are recorded in this period and the papers do not detail where he was working from day to day. He was working for Robert Harvey ....... who was one of the Commissioners appointed under an Act of Parliament passed in 1814.

Throughout this period George lodged at Otherton, and when he left the lodgings and paid for that, on he charged – about 10 guineas - to the Penkridge Enclosure.

December 5-9

George was attending a meeting at The Littletons’ Arms Inn at Penkridge on account of the Enclosure. He seems not however to have been continuously in this meeting, but to have been assigned to start work on a different project.

From early December much more detail is given, and the work is on lands belonging, perhaps not in a modern sense, to Lord Willoughby de Broke. One such place was Rodbaston [between Penkridge and Gailey] (but it would seem, not Rodbaston Hall or its farm).

Dec. 8

He bought two quires of foolscap and some tracing paper. He also paid a chain drawer for work at Rodbaston, this for the account of Lord Willoughby. Also he measured three closes of land in Gailey Manor belonging to Lord Willoughby, an area of about 31 acres.

Dec. 11-22

On these dates George was “collecting the Names of the Owner and Occupiers of the Lands surveyed by me and casting same.” This must have been mainly for the account of Lord Willoughby, to whom he charged the cost of ink, quills and vellum paper bought on Dec. 19, and the cost of going to Stafford and back that day.

23 December

George was at Mr Turner’s of Penkridge “making Sketch from Parish Plans of Land in the Manor of Rodbaston” (Lord Willoughby). Another assignment was starting as the same day George was also “sketching from my own Parish Plans of Land belonging to E Littleton Esq and others.” George says this was about 321 acres but I don't know if this was all at Rodbaston.

The landowner referred to here had changed his name to Littleton when he inherited Teddesley in 1812 at the age of 21, and from 6 June 1812 he was the Member of Parliament for Staffordshire (History of Parliament). Presumably the Teddesley Enclosure was taking place wholly or partly at his wish. Some years later he would be the one to complain about the work on it, and bring an action alleging fraud in the way it had been carried out.

Map showing main places mentioned (south)

24-25 Dec.

No details. I wonder if George had the opportunity or the time, or the money, to go to Birmingham to have Christmas there. If so, it was a short break.

26 Dec.

Mr Turner gave him £13.

26 Dec. until 8 Jan. 1816

For Lord Willoughby. Most of this time, surveying Coppenhall Farm in the occupation of a Mr Webb and also certain Lands in the occupation of a Mr Oakley and another (whose name I cannot make out). This was about 323 acres. [Coppenhall about 1 mile SW of Stafford, I suppose]

27 Dec.

George made Copy of what he had been doing on 23 December. He says this was by Order of Mr James Turner [I suspect James Turner might be Lord Willoughby's Agent]

1816

8 Jan.

George paid two labourers for 8 days…. No doubt for work at Coppenhall.

On 8 January George moved to other work, perhaps following instructions given him in letters from Dunstall and Butterton that he had received and paid for on 4 January. The night of 8 January he stayed at the Littleton Arms at Penkridge and reached Butterton on 9 Jan.

This is the Butterton about two miles south of Newcastle -under-Lyme, just west of the M6 motorway.

The work from now on appears mainly to have been on Thomas Swinnerton's estate. Mr Swinnerton, a barrister of the Inner Temple (admitted in 1774 and called in 1779) and Recorder of Stafford, had married in 1793 and seems to have considered having a new house built at Butterton but not to have done so. George's work appears to be unconnected to the Teddesley Enclosure Act…. Was it for Enclosure purposes at all? Or was it for some other purpose, eg Mr Swinnerton wanted to be able to better understand and manage his estate? Mr Swinnerton did it appears have a new “farmhouse” designed in 1815 (lostheritage website) and this perhaps is the “New Farm” mentioned here, or on the site of it.

January 9 onwards

His initial work was at or near Butterton Hall “surveying Lands there belonging to Thomas Swinnerton esquire vizt Farm in the occ of Simpson Stevenson – [some words deleted] – meadows and lands called Roe Lane Meadows, Grinsley Meadows, Broomy Leys, Long Croft and Land late Marquis of Stafford in the occupation of (blank) Snape much dispersed” … About 102 acres.

I think “much dispersed” means that the areas to be surveyed and measured did not lie neatly next to one another.

George engaged two labourers for four weeks until Feb 4. It does not seem to be clear where he lodged.

Jan 19 and 20

“Staking out Lands to be divided and set to the respective Tenants plotting same upon the Butterton Map and casting same” for two days. Also surveying and plotting the Woodhouse Farm in the occupation of (blank) Brayford and Scotts Land. About 155 acres.

A Woodhouse Farm is located about 3 kms west of Butterton at Dab Green. The name is common but I think this is the right one. Woodham Farm is mentioned later. I think that may be an error.

24 Jan.

George paid for a letter received from London (perhaps from Mr Swinnerton himself, or more likely from Mr Harvey).

26 Jan.

George walked to the Carr House at Audley surveying 35 acres of land in the occupation of Revd Smith.

Carr House is on Carr Lane, west of the village of Audley, and very near the line of the M6 today. It would have been a good 20-mile round walk.

29 to Feb 2

“Surveying and plotting the New Farm at Butterton in the occupation of Benjamin Harding (one word I cannot make out).” About 211 acres. On a day in February Mr Harding paid George £10 (this was before 5 Feb as George mentioned it in his letter of that date).

The location of “Butterton New Farm” is north of the A5182 rather close to what is now the motorway junction. This may be a “Home Farm” of the estate there.

(Staffordshire Advertiser 10 March 1821 contains a notice of sale, at Butterton near Newcastle, of the farming stock and furniture etc of Mr Benjamin Harding, who is said to be leaving the Butterton Farm).

3 Feb.

Measuring and mapping “Foot Roads” (paths etc) near Butterton Hall and “made certification thereof to present to His Majesties (sic) Justices of The Peace for the Co of Stafford” (1 day).

4 Feb.

George paid two labourers for the previous four weeks work. This incidentally was his twentieth birthday.

Map showing main places mentioned (north)

5 Feb.

He paid the servants at Butterton, and then his initial account says he went to Cheadle. That would be for Mr Swinnerton but this entry was deleted. He in fact says he went from Butterton, or from Trentham, to Penkridge by coach (noting that he was riding outside, which was obviously cheaper for his employer).

Also on 5 Feb he wrote to Mr Harvey or started to do so, about money owed to him. [see letter, in the previous post]

5 -9 Feb.

George was attending a meeting on the Penkridge Inclosures. Again he seems not to have been confined to the meeting, for on 8 Feb he measured and plotted the Great Moor at Rodbaston. 41 acres. Before leaving Rodbaston he paid a man for one day for Lord Willoughby's account.

10 Feb.

George now went back from Penkridge to Butterton, now of course noting that the charge should be to Mr Swinnerton …… he had dinner at Stone, which is about half way….... He says -” took Plan of New Farm to shew Mr Harding and to receive instructions as to the surveying the Delph House and Haywood Grange Farms”…..

11 Feb.

George now paid the Butterton servants and on 12 he went to Lane End and onwards to Cheadle, with some luggage sent to Trentham.

“Lane End” refers to a place now called (or part of) Longton on the east side of Stoke-on-Trent, at or near ST3 1SU, and was presumably a place for changing coaches. It was on the route from Butterton to Cheadle, something like half way.

12 and 13 Feb.

George stayed two nights at the Royal Oak at Cheadle because accommodation that had, it seems, been arranged for him at a place called Whitehurst was not suitable, or was not ready (…. “my lodging at Whitehurst being unprepared”). He then did lodge at Whitehurst, until 24 February.

This must be Whitehurst Farm, on Whitehurst Lane, ST10 2PG. It is a couple of miles from Cheadle.

12^th to 24 Feb.

“Surveying Haywood Grange Farm belonging to Thos. Swinnerton esquire in occ of Thos. Heath, and the Delph House Farm in the occ of Ed. Eardley. “Quantity 186-2-26 (NB he has also written the number 195 and totalled it to 382).

Haywood Grange or Heywood Grange in Tickhill Lane in Dilhorne, is very near Whitehurst. A c17 farmhouse there.

Delph House is at or near ST10 2NN to the west of Cheadle.

22 Feb.

He paid some men at the Roebuck Inn at Brooke House…….. and charged for dinner.

The Roebuck Inn is marked on the old 6 inch map as just south of the crossroads at Brookehouses, a short distance west of Cheadle. This is very near Delph House.

24 Feb.

He paid two labourers for a week's work. Later on 24 Feb he went back from Cheadle via Stone to Penkridge, getting some paper on the way, which was needed for Littywood…

27 to March 9 …… I think till March 5 rather than 9
He seems to say he spent these days “Surveying the Littywood Estate the property of Lord Willoughby in the occupation of Edw. Reynolds and Thos. Stanley.” 530 acres.

Littywood is a historic site a few miles south west of Stafford at ST18 9DW, very close to Coppenhall.

March 5

He goes from Penkridge via Stone to Cheadle

March 7 from Cheadle to Stafford

March 9 and 10 he goes back to Cheadle with an overnight at Stone.

March 10 to 30

He lodges at Whitehurst again, apparently doing “desk” work there writing up the previous surveys. He says:- “At the Whitehurst Laying down plotting and casting the Littywood Estate, casting the Woodham Farm [perhaps an error, see Woodhouse Farm above], Scotts Land, Lands at Audley, the New Farm, Coppenhall Farm, Haywood Grange and the Delph House Farm and finishing surveys on hand making out accounts.”

It is hard to understand why this work was done at Whitehurst, seemingly a remote location but I think it was a property perhaps belonging to the Swinnerton (Butterton) estate, so it was perhaps cheap.

31 March About this time he goes from Cheadle – via Stone – to Penkridge.

April 1

“To Boormoor Corner(?) Micklewood Heath, setting out and measuring the centres of the Old Roads etc etc” (Tiddesley Inclosure).

Micklewood Lane runs SE from Penkridge. Notices in the Staffs Advertiser in June 1822 show that Micklewood Heath was part of Otherton, or very near. The word transcribed as “Boormoor” is probably Boscomoor, a name which occurs between Penkridge and Otherton.

EMB 19 April 2020

George Beaumont - Land Surveyor (1) - articles and early work 1811-1818

In 1811 Richard Beaumont of Birmingham paid £190 to a Surveyor called Richard Court to article his fifteen-year old son George to him for four years.

Mr Court was based at Blackstone, on the River Severn near Bewdley, and was much engaged in Enclosure work and auction sales over a wide area. He had taken over from his father Harry Court some years before.

George's notebooks from that time (specifically the one which is Box 1/034) show that he was involved in that sort of work. I think it must have been seen as good business to have George trained in this as Enclosure work was profitable and remunerative.

This comes from George's book and shows what I think must be a fictitious location, illustrating the kind of work he was able to do.

When his period of articles was over, George did some work for a man named Robert Harvey. I strongly think this was Mr Court's introduction. Robert Harvey and another gentleman, called Robert Harvey Wyatt, were the Commissioners appointed under an Act, passed in 1814 for the Enclosure of lands in Staffordshire, at Penkridge, Cannock, Berkswich, and Teddesley,

Papers in this archive (Box 1/019) in George's handwriting, show that he was working for Mr Harvey from October 1815 until February/March 1816. During the autumn he surveyed about 1,600 acres..... in the Manors of Otherton, Lyne Hill (he wrote Lynall), Pillaton (he wrote Pileton), and Penkridge,  on account of the Teddesley Enclosure.

He also surveyed lands and farms belonging to Lord Willoughby de Broke, and (after Christmas) Thomas Swinnerton Esq, these no doubt also being Mr Harvey's clients, work which seems to be separate from Teddesley, which mainly belonged to E.J. Littleton Esq.

George's papers (summarised in the post which will follow this) detail what he did for Mr Harvey (particularly for Lord Willoughby and Mr Swinnerton) and include an account stating what George had spent out of his pocket and how much had been refunded to him on behalf of the clients.

There is also this copy letter, which is self-explanatory:

Penkridge February 5, 1816
Sir,
On the other side is an account of the money which I have expended on business also an account of the money I have received at different times from Mr Jas. Turner of Penkridge and Mr B. Harding at Butterton Hall by comparing the two accounts you will perceive that the balance of £5-17-5 is in my favour which I shall esteem a favor if you will remit together with some more money to carry on business as I have not resources of my own so to do. 
I remain, Sir, Yours very respectfully G B

The back sheet reads: Bill and letter as sent to Robert Harvey Esquire February 26, 1816.

After this letter, George did continue to work for Mr Harvey for over another month, incurring more expenses and did receive a further £20, presumably from Mr Harvey. I don't know whether this is the whole story, and whilst George's account is muddly, ultimately I agree with his sums!! He recorded expenses totalling £37-18s-6d in total over the whole period, and that he was reimbursed a total of £43-0-0. This is just expenses. There is no information about wages.

No further dealings between the Beaumonts and Mr Court, Mr Harvey, or Mr Wyatt are known. Mr Court was soon embroiled in a case in which a Judge decided that his conduct in a particular matter had been (to put it bluntly) fraudulent, whilst a separate fraud case was also brought against Mr Wyatt some years later, after Mr Harvey had died. I will mention these cases in a later piece.

My feeling is that if I were George, I would have wanted out, as the saying goes.

It strongly appears that the 20-year old George returned to his father's house at Ashted (near Birmingham) in 1816. He worked there for a time, but his training and skills were better suited to a rural practice, and he went to Newark in Nottinghamshire. There, in September 1818, he set up on his own:

              In commencing practice as a Land Agent and Surveyor in this Neighbourhood, 
              I beg leave to rely implicitly on your patronage, trusting that my abilities, 
              combined with uniform attention and assiduity, may merit that support I most 
              respectfully solicit. I am, with the greatest respect, your most obedient servant, 
              George Beaumont
              Market-place, Newark-upon-Trent, September 1st, 1818.

His family, particularly his three uncles Rev. Thomas Beaumont, Walter Beaumont, and Abel Beaumont, had many connections in Nottinghamshire and may have introduced him to potential clients and other useful contacts in Newark.
...........
Documents from this Archive:
1/105 The Agreement dated 27 March 1811 between Richard Beaumont, George, and Richard Court for George to be articled to Mr Court for four years, the period formally starting from George's 15th birthday 4 February 1811, though he started in December 1810.

1/034 A workbook kept by George during the time he was articled to Richard Court.
1/107 A pocket-book with jottings kept by George at same period.
1/019 George's account of his work for Robert Harvey in 1815-1816 (see next post).
1/084 The ode to and lock of hair of the dog "Pickle" (my post 26 Jan. 2014) show that George was back at Ashted by October 1816.

Other sources of information:
Wrightson's Triennial Directory (1818) lists George as a Land Agent at his father's address at Ashted.

The advertisement:- Stamford Mercury 4 and 11 September 1818.

Reports of the court cases which will be mentioned later.

Various items in Nottinghamshire Archives confirm that George was working at Newark by 1819. These include a Survey of the Balderton estate (near Newark) dated 1819, by “Beaumont” (DD/T/134/35/1) (or MP/BN/1/R), a map of Newark and surrounding lands with key to owners, “Surveyor: Beaumont,” dated 1820 (DD/T/193/1) (or MP/NE/10/L); and a farm at Screveton, surveyed 1820 (DD/T/134/35/9)… I haven't seen these, except in the catalogues.