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

Richard Beaumont of Birmingham - as Captain

The previous piece explained that Richard being a Captain in the 84th Regiment is wrong, based on the document appointing his brother as Chaplain having been misunderstood and indeed written over.

So was he a Captain at all? Yes he was.

Richard was first of all commissioned an "Ensign" in the Derbyshire Militia. That was in 1782 when he was 21 (original document in this Archive, Box 1/121; see this blog, 27 Jan.2014).

He then went to make his home in Birmingham but it seems did not give up his links with Derby, as in June 1789 he was made up to Lieutenant "additional to the Light Company" (still Derbyshire Militia) with effect 27 April (London Gazette 23 June 1789 page 455; Derby Mercury 25 June 1789).

This is part of a view of Birmingham looking from southwest to northeast. It depicts the town
as it was when St.Phillips church (upper left) was quite new (from Langford, vol. 2, frontispiece,
and said there to be drawn by J & N Buck, 1731).

Perhaps during the late 1790s or c.1800 Richard and his family moved from the centre of Birmingham to the new suburb of Ashted, where there was a Barracks. He was appointed a Captain in the First Battalion of the Loyal Birmingham Infantry. That was in October 1803 (London Gazette 8 October 1803 page 1380; Langford, A Century of Birmingham Life, 2nd Edition, 1871, vol. 2, page 291).

He was appointed a Captain in the Second Regiment of Local Militia, Warwickshire, on 24 September 1808 (original document in this Archive, Box 1/123) (London Gazette 9 September 1809 p.1455)(confirming date 24 Sep 1808).

Box 1/123

(All officers of the rank of Captain and above were designated Esquire)
(Please note the absence of any middle name)

This note made 26 February 2018

The Beaumont Family Tree - some errors

A Family Tree was printed in about 1873.

I can say that it was about then because it says nothing about things later than that.

It has been widely followed, so that information from it now appears in Burke's Peerage and in certain online resources such as Darryl Lundy's "peerage" website.

There are some errors in the 1873 Family Tree, and these have thus become "hallowed" by repetition!

The Family Tree must have been compiled based on information from the various heads of family at the time. One of those being George Beaumont 1796-1882. This note picks up some errors for which I fear he is either responsible - or which he didn't spot.

From the 1873 Family Tree, about George (partly cut off
in crease!), his father, and his brother.

Error no. 1 - His father's military role

Of George's father, the 1873 Family Tree says "Capt., 84th Regt."

This has been widely copied. It is entirely wrong.

Richard had the rank of Captain but not in the 84th Regiment. Richard's brother Thomas however was the Chaplain to the 84th Regiment.

This archive contains a document appointing Thomas as the chaplain (Box 18/304). The document was rather crudely altered by someone so as to make "T.Beaumont, clerk" look like "R.Beaumont, gent." and to alter "Chaplain" to "Captain."

Extract from altered appointment of T[homas] Beaumont, clerk, as
chaplain to 84th Regiment, 1793 (Box 18/304)

See how the "l" in Chaplain has been crossed to make it a "t" and the "Ch" has been blotted out with a large "C."  Presumably it was George who did this but can anyone say why?

This document is dated 2 November 1793. A published list of the Officers of the 84th Regiment of Foot shortly after this shows four Captains, none of whom are called Beaumont, but T.... Beaumont, clerk, as the Chaplain (London Gazette, issue 13627, page 180). Rev. Thomas Beaumont knew the Colonel of the 84th, George Bernard. This is to be considered in a later piece,

Error no. 2 - George's father's middle name

The 1873 Family Tree states "Richard Henry Beaumont, of Aston, co. Warwick." This also has been widely copied, and is equally wrong insofar as it gives him a middle name. No earlier sources of information have come to light giving Richard any middle name. Someone seems to have invented this and I can only think that the error arose because Richard was one of several brothers, of whom the fourth was Richard and the fifth was called Henry.

George had apparently given his own son Richard the middle name Henry, but that is hardly the point!

If George supplied information to the compilers of the Family Tree, he might have been confused by various documents which list the brothers in order:- Thomas George William Richard Henry Walter Abel....  The Family Tree not only states "Richard Henry" but also gets the order wrong.

So I will resume the sequence of births of all the siblings, noting "FT1" for the order of the sons given in the 1873 Family Tree:-

Thomas (1754-) (FT1)
Frances (1756-)
George (1757-) (FT2)
William (?1758-) (died no later than 1796) [not in the FT]
Richard (1761-) (FT3)
Henry (1762-) (died in early 1785) (FT5)
Charlotte (1765-
Walter (1767-) (FT4 and FT6) [yes, Walter is in the FT twice]
Abel (1772-) (FT7)

Possible Error No. 3 - George's mother

The 1873 Family Tree shows Richard's wife, the mother of George himself and of his brother Henry, as "Ann, daughter of William Walford, of Penn Bank, co. Stafford.. mar. 1795." This has been widely copied.

Ann was indeed the name of a daughter of William Walford, christened at Penn in 1772. She married Richard Beaumont and survived him as his widow for many years. George of course knew and visited her!

But it is not possible for us to say whether she was George and Henry's mother (or indeed whether George knew if she was his mother), for George and Henry were born many years before she married their father, which was not until 1817. (8 February 2019: see comment below)

The date of 1795 given for the marriage in the Family Tree is conveniently the year before George's birth, and tells us I believe very clearly that that the compilers did not know of Richard having any other wife at the time George and Henry were born (Richard had a first wife who died some time before they were born, a marriage which the 1873 Family Tree omits entirely) (also he had a child in 1815, apparently by a wife called Ann, this child died the same year).

Parish Register entry for marriage of Richard Beaumont to Ann Walford, 15 July 1817
at either Aston parish church or the chapel of St James the Less, Ashted.
He is "widower" and she is "spinster." They are both "of this parish" and
the marriage was by Licence (rather than by Banns).

Error no. 4 - George's address

The 1873 Family Tree shows George as "of Bridgeford Hall, Notts." He lived at Bridgford Hill. This is still wrong in lots of published places, eg sometimes "Bridford Hill."


This note made 26 February 2018.
Comment 8 February 2019: I have now done a longer piece on RB of Birmingham, and that touches on  the first three of the errors noted here. In regard to No.3, it looks to me more likely than not, that Ann Beaumont (nee Walford) was the actual mother of George and Henry. They are expressly described as "my sons" in her Will, for what that is worth.

Rev George Beaumont's Accounts 1736-1754

This small notebook is a mine of information about George's early life, his inheritance, education, move to Nottingham, and so on.

Here is a sample page

Here is a link to the old transcript, made some years ago and containing a few errors (mea culpa!).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxEJg04fqwkibnlxZk9HU09scUk/view?usp=sharing

(I fear the transcript will display single pages, you may be able to get it to display two pages at at time. The odd number pages are on the left and the even on the right)

The notebook is in this archive Box 1/001. George is "you" in the accounts, as they are addressed to him.

At the end are some notes which I wrote in 1999 and annotated in 2008. There has been some more recent work, for example it is now clear that George went up to Cambridge (Trinity Hall) in April 1742 (he was sixteen). It would seem that he was not given access to his money at that time.

He got married, at Leeds, on 30 July 1753. He had, as the accounts show, been in Yorkshire a few times. In fact he had preached at Chapelthorpe, or in the mother church at Sandal Magna, on more than one occasion including that July. This is shown by notes in the parish register.

The accounts show that he was apt to spend somewhat faster than his income flowed in. Thus it was no doubt very helpful that his uncle Abel Smith, the banker (who knew everyone) fixed him up with a short term curate job at Tollerton (the one near Nottingham, not the one near York) shortly after his marriage.

Here he is, in the portrait which has come down through the family.

I hope to write something about the portraits one day and will just say for now that I begin to suspect that this portrait, and the one of Betty, the young woman he married (both of which are dated 1753) may have been wedding presents from Abel Smith. Who knows?

Land Tax, Stamp Duty, and Smiths Bank, Nottingham

We know that the banking Smith family of Nottingham were important to the Beaumonts in the eighteenth century. This led me to consider more about the Smiths and their banking business. Again and again I found the surname Bury, and snippets of information about the collection of tax.

Take this with caution please, it is not fully researched (see notes).

Stamp Duty was introduced in the 1690s and one John Bury was appointed the Distributor for the Stamp'd Parchment and Paper, for Nottingham and/or Notts. At this time the local Receiver of Land Tax was Thomas Trueman, one of whose sureties was Samuel Hallowes, of Norton, Derbyshire, and of Nottingham, a Land Tax Commissioner for Nottingham. Mr Hallowes' daughter Frances was Mrs John Bury.

Stamp Duty Act, from a Law Textbook of 1711

Thomas Trueman died and John Bury succeeded him as Receiver in 1697 or 1698, and at some stage - perhaps in 1708 - was himself succeeded as Distributor of Stamps by Richard Smith (who seems not to be related to the bankers).

It was normal for there to be delays in sending tax money to London. Indeed the foundation of the banking business lay in putting it to use locally. Sending cash by road was (or was made out to be) a risky undertaking. Until the practice was found to be unlawful, John Bury and other Receivers had often claimed for the cost of "strong guards and extraordinary charges" and perhaps the genius of the Smiths lay in keeping accounts between London and Nottingham so that the money did not need to be physically sent.

From the death of Thomas Smith (1728) the principal partners in the banking business for the next 20-odd years were Abel Smith in Nottingham and Samuel Smith in London.

(In parenthesis, several of the Beaumonts, the family of Abel's wife Jane, were Land Tax Commissioners in the West Riding of Yorkshire, including her grandfather and father, and the family had experience of collecting tithe money and lending that out - they were, in a sense, Smiths in miniature).

John Bury retired, handing the Receivership over to his son John Bury junior. But in 1732, John junior died, and Mr Bury senior took the role again until his own death six years later. He was buried in St.Mary's Church, Nottingham, close to his house on Short Hill.

The second son William Bury was made Receiver in his father's place. At this time the Land Tax collected annually from Notts and Nottingham was a little short of £30,000, which was banked with the Smiths.

Sometime c.1740-1747 William Bury subscribed for four copies of Charles Deering's proposed History of Nottingham (which was in fact not published until 1750 or 1751). Other subscribers included Abel Smith (a copy for himself and one for Samuel), and Thomas Beaumont [probably Abel's brother-in-law, though not indicated "The Rev." here] (Deering MSS at Bromley House Library).

The old Smiths Bank, South Parade, Nottingham (from Easton)

Mr Bury and Samuel Smith were made Freemen of Nottingham in 1751, but by about that time William had moved to Berkshire where he died in late April or early May 1754, leaving as his widow Ann, a member of the Sherwin family of Nottingham. The next brother was Thomas Bury, who appears to have lived in St.James's, Westminster.

Samuel Smith died in 1751 and there is the impression that during the next few years Abel Smith declined and his sons bickered. It is said that William Bury's account with the Smiths was closed (Leighton-Boyce, p.41). There was a tricky political situation at home. A great deal of "stuff" happened in the early 1750s and I feel sure the Nottingham Bank would have lost some customers. Abel senior died in late 1756, and within a year his sons George and Abel were separating. In a letter in November 1757 Abel said that "Mr Bury" [that can only mean Thomas] was willing to make him his deputy (to JS Charlton, Add Ms.32876 f.79) whilst at the same time George lobbied for the business, claiming that his London cousins were joining him (ibid. f.41r & v) - but did they?

It has been said that George did become the Deputy Receiver of Land Tax but I don't know for how long or what is the evidence at all. Abel was the "most liked" (JS Charlton to Duke of Newcastle, 22 Nov. 1757; Add Ms 3287 f.77r).

In 1758 Abel signed up a new partner, London heavyweight John Payne, and this may have helped to give him the credibility needed. Abel being Deputy Receiver-General of Land Tax for Nottingham and Notts is said to be documented in a "Memorial" of 1767 (Treasury Papers T/1/462/156-157); this is on the get-a-copy list.

Reports about Land Tax in the Treasury Books and Newspapers are often about problems, especially defaults or arrears. For example the inhabitants of a district of Lincolnshire were hit with Land Tax claims 25 years on because their Receiver - a man named Joseph Gace - had defaulted (but he had built a fine house....). Fortunately for the taxpayers, they were able to prove that they had paid. In general there is an absence of stories about Land Tax from Nottingham, which I take as implying that those concerned were running a tight ship - sending money in quicker than some, and not creaming off more than was considered acceptable.

Land Tax Act, 1744. George II c.I

A man dressed in naval uniform arrived at Nottingham and tried to get cash from Smiths Bank on "Bath and Bristol notes" but was refused "for want of a proper Indorser." The man then asked if there was another bank in the town. He got £100 out of Wrights before hastily leaving Nottingham! (Derby Mercury 2 February 1781). This sort of thing is why people trusted Abel Smith.

Thomas Bury also had an office in connection with issuing subpoenas in the Court of Chancery. He died in 1772 (see notes), when his unmarried sister was his executrix. This was Ann Bury, and Notts Archives (DD/138/55) have what seems to be the final sign-off to her for her late brother as the Receiver-General of Land Tax, again for Nottingham and Notts., dated August 1773.

Abigail Gawthern noted that Ann Bury was found dead in her bed in June 1787. She had her own house in Hockley in Nottingham. Her will was proved by her sister, the last surviving child of John Bury (d.1738). This was Dorothy, late wife of Francis Plumptre - from another well-known Nottingham family.

Miss Bury left money to Abel Smith for a ring, demonstrating the close connection between the two families, which now apparently ended after ninety years.

The next Receiver was George Mason of Eaton ("Idleton") near Retford, who had been a gentleman agent for the old Duke of Newcastle. He was soon succeeded by his son, another George Mason.

Now turning back to the role of Distributor of Stamps:-
As noted, this office was held by John Bury at the beginning of the century. It passed through several hands, people who seem initially connected with the book and stationery trade.

The office came to one James Foxcroft, an attorney, perhaps by the 1760s.  His arrears were such that in 1784 a "Writ of Extent" was issued and a judgment obtained allowing the court-appointed official (the "Deputy Remembrancer") to seize and sell his property, or enough of it to cover the debt. This process took several years.

The new Distributor of Stamps was Thomas Smith, Abel's nephew. In the late 1790s stamp duty from Notts averaged about £8,000 a year and I think the Distributor was entitled to keep seven and a half percent.

Thomas Smith was the builder of Gedling House a few miles outside Nottm. He retired in about 1805 and moved to Wales, having sold Gedling to William Elliott.

Gedling House

Thus Frances (Fanny) Beaumont - who was Mrs Elliott - lived at Gedling in the early c19, and it was often said that the Beaumonts' house at East Bridgford had come from the same plans. I don't know. But I was amused to be told by my daughter-in-law that her father almost bought Gedling House about twenty years ago. It had a ballroom!

One of the sons of Thomas Smith was George, who was Distributor of Stamps and Collector of Legacy Duty at Nottingham in 1813, when he issued the receipt below. I think this is George Smith (d.1843) to whom there is a Monument in the chancel of St.Peter's Church.

Beaumont Archives 18/322. See my earlier piece re John Walter

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

Notes

There were other taxes, such as "Window Tax," "Duties on Marriages," "House Duties." One might be a "Receiver" for more than one of these, and/or in more than one place. I suspect there are lots of mistakes even in the primary sources. The system was chaotic and corrupt. As early as 1729 the post-hunt feast at Houghton was described thus:-

From "The Norfolk Congress" in "Robin's Panegyrick, or, The Norfolk Miscellany"

concluding with this:-

A Land Tax Act was passed in each Session of Parliament, directing that so much be raised from each county. Oversight was entrusted to "Commissioners" for each county (wealthy gentlemen and lawyers, by and large). The next step down was the "Receiver" - who may have employed a Deputy. Money was collected by "Collectors" or "Assessors" working locally for the Receiver.

In the Catalogue of the Newcastle Papers there is "Abel Smith: Memorandum for the Duke...." in 1767 (Add Ms 32981 f.40). I thought this might be relevant to Land Tax, and obtained a copy of it. But it relates to a possible appointment of Rector of St.Peter's Church, Nottingham, and whilst it mentions Abel Smith, it is not in fact from him.

There were several contemporary gentlemen called Thomas Bury, so care is needed. However a notice in the Bath Chronicle (late October 1772) explicitly states the Thomas Bury who had lately died at Holt - a small spa near Bath - to be the Patentee in the Subpoena Office and Receiver-General for Nottingham.

Throughout the Burys' time, there was the parallel office of "Receiver-General of Land Revenues" for both Lincs and Notts. (see J.C. Sainty, Receivers of Land Revenues (for the BIHR)). This was held, at least from c.1720, by a succession of gentlemen - lawyers - who lived at Norwich.  "Land Revenues" is not the same as "Land Tax" and means, I think something approximating to "Rents due to the Crown."

I expect these Norwich gentlemen engaged agents or deputies to collect the money, and of course, handling and accounting for cash was the Smiths' business.  I could understand them visiting Norwich either to try to get the business or (if they got it) to re-assure their clients that things were being well-managed.

However, any such visits were not always successful, it seems, for archive catalogue entries (eg T 1/469/155-156) about the alleged frauds of one Charles Desborow in the late 1760s refer to him as deputy receiver of Land Revenues in Notts. and other counties. The Receiver at that time for Notts and Lincs was Francis Frank, of Norwich.

......................
Sources include:
Calendar of Treasury Books [and Papers],
"A Complete State of the British Revenue,"
Gentleman's Magazine,
Derby Mercury and other papers,
The London Gazette,
Abigail Gawthern's Diary,
Reports from Committees of the House of Commons vol. XIII
House of Commons Journal;
W.R. Ward, The English Land Tax in the Eighteenth Century;
Samuel Miller (1849), The Laws of the Land Tax;
J.A.S.L. Leighton-Boyce, Smiths the Bankers;
Easton, History of a Banking House;
White, Smiths who lived at Bromley House.

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