British Miniature Portraits - 2

Unknown - portrait of Major Thomas Cansh

2008-03-14T16:19:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait by an unknown artist is of Major Thomas Cansh (28 Jan 1781-?).

It is well documented by an inscription on the front and a portion of a printed document on the reverse.

The front inscription reads "Lieut & Adjut Thos Cansh - Vth Regiment - Valenceinnes, 15 Feby 1817". The 2nd battalion had been disbanded by this date with only the 1st battalion serving in France. As there was no fighting at this time, the date must have some other significance.

Unfortunately the rear document has large portions missing, with essentially four sections.

Section 1 ......Banquet held at Glasgow ......giving.......h details of services of the invited.....

Section 2 CANSH
....reference was made as follows:-
....an who planted his foot on the summit of the ramparts of Badajos
....allant veteran beside me, who planted the British Standard on the
....ilated the French Army on the Plains of Vittoria
....he arms of one of the veterans who now adorns this table - I mean ...

Section 3
....d of Major Cansh's services;-
....the Expedition to Hanover in 1805-1806; In the Peninsular with the
....from October 1813 to the end of that war in 1814, including the battles of
....lines at Torres-Vadras: Actions of Leria, Pombal, Redinha and Sabugal-
....tes d'Onore: Second Seige of Badajos - contused wound on chest: Actions
....capture of Cindad Rodigo - wound to right thigh in the assult ; Third Siege and
....at the assult: Battle of Salamanca - horse killed : Capture of Madrid and the
....Orthes : Actions of Sauveterre and Vic Bigorre, and Battle of Toulouse - horse wounded. Served afterwards in the American War, and was present at the Battle of Plattsburg.

(His date of death is not known, but if Major Cansh was still alive in 1847 he would have been entitled to wear this 1813-1814 Military General Service Medal which shows clasps for CORUNNA, BADAJOZ, SALAMANCA, VITTORIA, and ORTHES. This medal was only sanctioned in 1847 and awarded the next year.)

Section 4 The above mentioned book (presumably Narrative of the Peninsular Campaign 1807 -1814 Its Battles and Sieges (ISBN: 1847342663) by William Francis Patrick Napier) was given to General James W Walker, Irvine by Mrs M J Calder Xmas 1921, who wrote the following letter:-

To the Editor of the "Belfast News-Letter". (This is the oldest English language general daily newspaper still in publication in the world, having first been printed in 1737)
The Storming of Badajos
Dear Sir, Still further interest may be added to our correspondence on the Storming of Badajos, if I mention that my grand uncle, Major Cansh (not then of that rank) was the man who placed and scaled the second ladder by the side of Colonel Ridge, and was the first man alive to enter the city; for Ridge was shot as he gained the ramparts, and expired in Cansh's arms as he fell. Cansh is mentioned in Napier's "Battles and Sieges in the Peninsula" as follows :-
"A second ladder was placed alongside by the Grenadier Officer Cansh, and the next instant he and Ridge were on the rampart . . . the Castle was won." Major Cansh is buried in Dean Cemetery, Edinburgh, and a handsome monument erected by his fellow officers and friends gives a long list of the engagements in which he fought. I have a copy of a portrait of my grand uncle, and we have the sword which he carried throughout the Peninsula War. This fine soldier was one of ten sons, each of them measuring six feet and over in height. Not only was he a brave man, but he was also a devout Christian. I have heard my mother tell of how her "Uncle Thomas" never went into battle without prayer and reading a portion of scripture - Yours, etc M J Calder, 8 Stranmillis Road, Belfast.

The action is shown in a postcard and another illustration. The Siege of Badajos was regarded as one of the bloodiest actions of the Napoleonic Wars and more about it can be seen at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badajoz_(1812)

From the above inscription on the reverse of the miniature, it seems there was a banquet, perhaps shortly after 1921, at which Major Cansh's exploits were remembered. There are many references to Badajos and Colonel Ridge of the 5th (Northumberland) Regiment of Foot on the Internet, including BADAJOZ and War Medals of The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers. 5th Foot Regiment The Regimental Museum is at The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers

The history of the regiment is summarised at RootsWeb: GOONS-L Re: [G] Chelsea Pensioner - Fifth Fusiliers and includes the following. From 1787 to 1797 the 5th (Northumberland) Regiment of Foot was stationed in Canada. After its return home with the onset of the French Revolutionary War, it raised a 2nd Battalion that was disbanded after the Peace of Amiens of 27 Mar 1802. Both battalions fought under the Duke of York in Holland in 1799, and were afterwards stationed at Gibraltar. On the renewal of hostilities in May 1803, another 2nd Battalion was raised in Sussex. The 1st Battalion was based in Hanover in 1805 and was then despatched to South America where it was involved in the Battle of Buenos Aires on 5 Jul 1807, Returning to Europe it was stationed in Portugal in 1808-09 and fought at the Battles of Rolica (17 Aug 1808) Vimiera (21 Aug 1808) and in the withdrawal to and recovery from Corunna on 16 Jan 1809. Later that year it took part in the disastrous Walcheren Expedition of 13 Jul to 16 Aug 1809. In that year a detachment, that had remained in Portugal, was present at the Battle of Talavera (27-28 Jul 1909).
The 2nd Battalion then went to the Peninsula, and fought at Busaco on 27 Sep 1810, in the operations on the Coa, and at the second siege of Badajos. It formed part of a small force that beat off an overwhelming body of the enemy on the heights of El Bodon, on 25 Sep 1811, during the investment of Ciudad Rodrigo. This was a performance that Lord Wellington notified to the Army as "a memorable example of what can be done by steadiness, discipline, and confidence". The battalion fought at the storming of Ciudad Rodrigo on 9 to 12 Jan 1812, and at the Siege and capture of Badajos (17 Mar 16 Apr), where the gallant Colonel Ridge fell. The 1st Battalion having joined from England, both were present at the battle of Salamanca on 22 Jul 1812, after which the 2nd Battalion went home. The 1st Battalion continued to serve under General Picton in the "Fighting Division" until the end of the war. It was engaged in the Battles of Vittoria on 21 Jun 1813, the Nivelle on 10 Nov 1813, Orthez on 27 Feb 1814 Aire on 3 Mar 1814 and Toulouse on 10 Apr 1814. From France it went to Canada, and served on the frontier during the War of 1812, afterwards returning to Europe. The 1st Battalion landed at Ostende too late for Waterloo, but served with the Army of Occupation in France until 1818, during which time the 2nd Battalion was disbanded. (Source: "Records and Badges of the British Army 1900"; by Henry M Chichester and George Burges-Short; 2nd Edition; published in 1900 by Gale and Polden, Paternoster Row, London and Aldershot.)

Thomas Cansh was probably christened 28 Jan 1781 at Govan, Lanark, Scotland being the son of Alexander Cansh and Margaret Maxwell.

There seems to be little other information about the Cansh family on the Internet. However, as a further aside, according to the owners of the Belfast News-Letter referred to above:

"The News Letter [can claim] the first genuine "world exclusive". The boat carrying the first copy to leave America of the Declaration of Independence, and bound for London, hit stormy waters off the north coast of Ireland. The boat sought refuge in Londonderry port and arrangements were made for the declaration to be sent on horseback to Belfast, where it would be met by another ship for delivery to King George III.

Somehow, and in the best traditions of revelatory journalism, the News Letter editor of the day gained access to the priceless document and duly published it on the front page of the August 23, 1776 edition. Today there is a constant demand for copies of that famous and historical front page." 560

Barret(t) - profile of Insull Burman

2008-03-11T12:48:00.000-07:00

Although this miniature portrait is not of high quality as many other miniatures, it is an important reference for collectors of silhouettes.

Also, it has enabled some interesting "ancestor archaeology" to be conducted, albeit with several research diversions noted below, such as the Irish Potato Famine, Bear Farming, a School for Young Ladies, the reason for the slow acceptance of Daguerreotypes in England, and the transportation to Australia of convicted pickpockets!!

The important collecting reference is the two typeset trade labels. One being a printed label on the reverse and the other being an impression on the lower left of the portrait. The trade labels are discussed further below.

The frame is gesso over wood and unusually is painted black, most frames of this type and period being gold in colour.

Also most unusually, it has a painted border with tiny 3D metallic decorations inside all of the black shapes in the design.

I am not sure what the technique was to achieve this effect, but it must have been an expensive frame at the time.

The miniature was acquired from Stoke-on-Trent, England and the sitter has been identified as Insull Burman (1810-JAS 1884) by a hand written label on the rear which reads "Insull Burnan (sic) - husband of Caroline - my great-grandfather 1810-1884". Although the writer misspelled the name, this is an example of the importance of identifying miniatures, as it has enabled a little re-creation of the sitter's life".

A complication in tracing his life is that some records refer to him as Insull Burnan and some refer to him as Insull Burman. There are also variations of his first name as Insull, Insell, Insall, and Insul.

The 1851 census for 76 Temple Street, West Bromwich, Staffordshire shows Insull Burman aged 40 as a brewer's agent born in Tanworth (now usually referred to as Tanworth-in-Arden and not to be confused with Tamworth), nine miles south of Birmingham, Warwickshire. His wife Caroline (16 May 1824-?) is aged 26 born in Worcester City and they have four children; Mary C (1842-?) aged 9 born in Aston, Martha (1845-?) aged 6, John (1847-?) aged 4 and Annie (1849-?) aged 2 with the three youngest children all born in West Bromwich. Also in the household is Edwin Nichols a clerk aged 21 and unmarried, born in Hagely, Worcs and described as Insull's brother-in-law. Thus he is Caroline's brother and her maiden name of Nichols can be determined. This is confirmed by their marriage record of 20 Dec 1840 at Aston Juxta Birmingham, Warwickshire. It would seem that Caroline was only 16 at the time of her marriage.

There is also a servant in the house during the 1851 census, Sarah Burns aged 19 who was born in Ireland. As this is the 1851 census, it seems certain that Sarah had fled from Ireland because of the potato famine which in 1851 had been running for six years from 1845. During the famine over one million people died from starvation and its associated effects, with another million fleeing the country to England, America, and elsewhere.

Thus although we can sympathise with Sarah Burns living the life of a servant, in all probability she would have considered herself fortunate to have enough to eat. For more about the famine see The History Place - Irish Potato Famine

The parents of Insull Burman were John Burman of Light Hall (shown here) and Mary Heath who were married 21 June 1808 in Tanworth, so this was his childhood home. The name Insull being taken from his great-grandmother's maiden name Mary Insull who married John Burman on 1 May 1747.

There is much about the history of the Burman family at Burman They had lived in the general area since 1273, with an unbroken record from 1467 to the present, with a Burman being Mayor of Stratford on no less than five occasions.

In 1857 Insull Burman moved to Farndon, seven miles south of Chester where he died in JAS 1884. Some records are a little hard to locate due to Insull being wrongly spelled when transcribed to www.ancestry.com, but the family can be found in the 1861 census with three more children Clara (1852-?), Ella (1854-?) and Edwin (1856-?). Insull's occupation is very hard to decipher and perhaps looks like "Landowner Fisher"?

In the 1871 census for Farndon Insull's occupation is given as "Income derived from interest on property". Interestingly, four unmarried daughters are all still living at home as teachers with the family residence called Holly Bank School, described as a "School for Young Ladies", and with eight live in pupils aged 9 to 14, and perhaps also some day pupils.

In 1881 the family lives at 74 Barton Road, Farndon still with eight live in pupils. By 1891 Insull has died and Caroline lives at Bridge House, Farndon as a housekeeper with her widowed son-in-law William Thelwall, a surgeon and his six children.

Turning to the trade labels, the printed one on the reverse reads "Likeness Copied, Repaired &etc. Barrett (sic), Miniature and Portrait Painter, and Profilist ,148, Holborn Bars, Five doors down from Gray's Inn Lane, London - Hours 10 to 9 - Frames provided".

Only a portion of the imprint can be read from the front "Miniature & Portrait Painter Barret (sic) 148 Holborn Bars". Thus it is interesting that Barrett is spelled differently on the front and reverse of the portrait.

A kind visitor has pointed out the major work on British silhouette artists by Sue McKechnie which refers to Barrett as active c1838-1842. Although McKechnie refers to Barretts trade labels and to 148 Holborn Bars, she says she has seen little of his work and does not seem to have ever come across either of the trade labels shown here. She does mention one trade label for him from 122 Holborn Bars, which refers to daguerreotype portraits, but the 148 Holborn Bars label here does not refer to daguerreotypes. One wonders why he gave that line of work up?

Perhaps because daguerreotype photography spread rapidly across France and the United States but not in the United Kingdom, where Louis Daguerre controlled the practice with a patent. Richard Beard, who bought the British patent from Miles Berry in 1841, closely controlled his investment, selling licenses throughout the country and prosecuting infringers.

This picture taken around 1905 shows some of the very old houses in Holborn Bars which would have been there in 1840, but the numbers in the photo are not known.

An 1896 description says "Holborn, derived from Hole Bourne, has been an important thoroughfare for centuries. Criminals travelled along it from the Tower and Newgate on their last journey to Tyburn, and the Inns of Court on either side made it busy. It escaped the Great Fire, but modern improvements have greatly altered its character, least so, however, at the spot known as Holborn Bars, where are some picturesque old houses. The granite obelisk is one of those marking the site of the Bars enclosing the City Liberties, and here a toll had to be paid for carts entering the City. Through Holborn Bars entry is effected to Staple Inn, where Dr. Johnson lived and wrote "Rasselas". Holborn extends from the Viaduct to Holborn Bars; that part of the street which stretches from the Bars to Drury Lane is known as High Holborn."

The profile is undated, but judging by the apparent age of Insull Burnam, at say 35 to 45, and his clothing, it would seem that the profile was taken around 1845/1855.

Tracking the Barrett family has been more difficult, as there is no first name for him. Street directories for 1837-39 record that J Gillingswater, Slaughterer of Bears and Importer of Bear Grease, had a barber's shop at 148 Holborn Bars, London.

This is an opportunity for a little history lesson! Bears grease was used as a pomade for the hair and was also said to cure baldness, presumably based on bears being very hairy (ie furry). In the 19C bears were even farmed and there is reference to this practice at THE BEAR INDUSTRY. The reference is to the banning of bear farming in Maine, USA where it was estimated in 1877 there were, within the state of Maine, 1800 families involved in breeding and raising bears, with each milch bear yielding "10 to 12 pounds of excellent butter".

Some years later, in 1857-58 148 Holborn Bars was occupied by Charles Pyemont a photographer and in 1859-61 by William Levinne another photographer. By 1861 Charles Pyemont who then described himself as "artist in painting" was living at 4 Charlton St, St Pancras. However he was not successful at that, as by 1881 he was widowed and described himself as a general labourer.

It therefore appears Barrett was at 148 Holborn Bars at some stage between 1839 and 1857 which fits with the apparent age of Insull Burman in the profile. It may be possible to narrow this time by trying to determine when John Gillingwater left the site and also trying to find who was living there in the 1841 and 1851 census records. The trade label refers to 148 Holborn Bars being five doors from Grays Inn Lane (now Grays Inn Road), so it must have been close to the bottom of this map.

John Gillingwater (10 Nov 1799-?) a hair dresser can be found in the 1841 census aged 40 living in Willow Terrace, St Mary Islington, with his wife Mary 45 and daughter Mary (3 May 1820-?) aged 20 and born in St Andrew, Holborn. There is a marriage record of John Gillingwater and Ann Kennedy for 4 Mar 1819 in Newgate, London. It appears his wife's name was Mary Ann, so she is recorded as both Mary and Ann.

As an interesting observation it appears from The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London 1674 to 1834 that on 23 Oct 1828 this same John Gillingwater was a witness at the Old Bailey against a pickpocket named William Stanton who had stolen a handkerchief valued at four shillings from his pocket. That sounds a lot of money for a handkerchief and Stanton was sent to prison for six months for the theft.

William Stanton was lucky as the next case in the Old Bailey on 23 Oct 1828 was a pick-pocketing charge against Ann Smith who had stolen a tobacco-box valued at one penny and coins totalling three pounds. She was sentenced to transportation for seven years!

In the 1851 census John Gellingwater (sic) is living as a gentleman, still at 2 Willow Terrace with his wife Ann and daughter Mary, who is still unmarried. It appears John Gillingwater had retired by 1851 and thus left 148 Holborn Bars before 1851. He has not been found in the 1861 census, but in 1871 John Gillingwater then a widower and retired hair dresser lived at 5 Brompton Villas, Edmonton, Middlesex. John appears to have died OND 1871.

Despite the above research, to date it has not been possible to find who was living at 148 Holborn Bars in the 1841 or 1851 census records, which could have enabled finding out the first name of Mr Barrett. 1316

Unknown - portrait of Charles James Fox

2008-02-29T18:14:00.001-08:00

Although this miniature portrait is unsigned, it is inscribed on the reverse "Charles James Fox".

It is quite a coincidence that the portrait was acquired only a month or two after the acquisition of the adjacent miniature of William Pitt the Younger (1759-Feb 1806), as Pitt and Charles James Fox (1749-Sep 1806) were fierce political opponents for many years in the late 18C and early 19C. Perhaps worn out by his political combat, Fox only outlasted Pitt by seven months before he too died.

The miniature may be from life, but is more likely to have been copied from another portrait, although to date the source has not been located. However, the miniature shows Fox as so portly that he can only do up one button on his jacket, a characteristic of other portraits of him.

Although the artist is unknown, he was skilful and competent. The close up gives an indication of the delicacy, although it is a little faded and thus the dark eyebrows which are more obvious in other portraits of Fox are not as prominent in this instance.

The jacket worn by Fox appears as grey-green with dark highlights. But at the very edge, where it was covered by the frame, the jacket is blue and so it seems the artist used a fugitive blue pigment for the jacket which has faded to a grey-green over the last two hundred years.

A minority of miniature painters also painted the reverse of the ivory base to enhance the miniature. The reverse image here is an example of that technique and perhaps shows the original colour of his jacket.

Fox was only 57 when he died, but appears younger than that in the miniature. Judging from his apparent age and that a black ribbon of a pig-tail wig can be seen behind his collar, it would seem that the portrait depicts him at age 40, say around 1790.

It can be compared with a number of other contemporary portraits of him. 1311

There is at least one other miniature portrait of Fox which was painted by Thomas Day in 1787. It is shown here and is held as part of the National Portrait Gallery collection in London, see NPG 6292

Apart from these portraits, both Fox and Pitt were the subjects of many vicious political cartoons depicting political events of the period. The NPG holds many examples of these.

Fox was a Liberal and the founder of the modern Whig party. Fox was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. He was also well disposed to America and became a prominent and staunch opponent of George III, whom he regarded as an aspiring tyrant.

Fox demonstrated his support of the revolutionaries across the Atlantic by taking up the habit of dressing in the colours of George Washington's army. As mentioned above, the coat here is badly faded, but was originally dark blue, as can be seen at the extreme edges. Taken with the buff waistcoat, it does represent the colours of Washington's army.

See also Charles James Fox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike Pitt, Fox was a passionate advocate for peace with France. After the "Peace of Amiens" in 1802, Fox went to France and met Bonaparte with a view to paving the way for a future Anglo-French alliance.

Although, I have not seen a direct reference to it, it seems that the relationship between Pitt and Fox was a little like that between Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain.

Supposedly the two men thought highly of each other, but that is similar to Chamberlain's comments about Hitler. Perhaps as Hitler did with Chamberlain, Napoleon put up a front to convince Fox of his "peaceable intentions".

After war broke out again in 1805, Fox renewed his virulent attacks in Parliament against Pitt's policy and said, not without reason, that the aggression came initially from England, that France had done no more than exert her right of legitimate defence.

He also spoke up against the subsidies that Britain paid to the coalition, declaring that war was disastrous for the nation and served no one but the Bourbons. He never varied in his opinions and represented a large part of the British nation who were opposed to war with France.

When William Pitt died, Fox immediately started negotiations with Napoleon and believed he was about to secure a durable peace, but he died a few months later. With his death, hopes for peace were irrevocably dashed and Napoleon always considered Fox's death as one of the misfortunes of his career. 1311

Unknown - portrait of William Pitt the Younger

2007-12-02T11:32:00.000-08:00

This miniature portrait by an unknown artist is of the famous English Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger (28 May 1759 – 23 January 1806). He was the son of William Pitt the Elder (1708-1778), who was Prime Minister of Great Britain (1766-1768).

William Pitt the Younger became the youngest ever Prime Minister of Great Britain between (1783-1801) and again between (1804-1806).

This miniature was probably painted after his death, perhaps to be sold as commemorative memorabilia in the years after his death. The miniature is interesting in a number of respects, although it is of far less importance than the other miniature shown below.

The National Portrait Gallery in London contains 145 portraits of Pitt, many of them being cartoons, but there appear to be no miniatures of Pitt in the collection. The main oil portrait of William Pitt on display in Room 20 at the National Portrait Gallery is described as "School of Hoppner" and so is regarded as a copy. However, to date I have not been able to determine if there is an original by John Hoppner, and if so, where it is. The original may even be lost completely.

From looking at the NPG website, there is one watercolour of Pitt which may be from life, but every other item is a copy of one kind or another, whether an engraving, a sculpture, or a print. For a link to the NPG portraits see William Pitt

The miniature shown here, is now the second miniature of Pitt in this collection and miniatures of him are therefore presumed to be uncommon, if not rare.

Comparison of the first and second miniature can be made, although Pitt is some twenty years different in age between the two portraits. The first miniature as shown here, is engraved on the reverse "Rt Hon'ble William Pitt".

It is believed to have been painted from life by John Donaldson (1737-1801). It has a lock of hair at the rear, and was acquired early in 2006.

Although, no attempt has been made to do so, it is presumed that a DNA analysis could be conducted on the hair sample, to determine whether the miniature can be completely confirmed as a miniature of Pitt. There is more about the first miniature at View

Although there are minor differences, it appears the second miniature is based upon a large oil portrait of William Pitt painted by John Hoppner.

There are various engravings in existence which were copied from the oil and it seems this second miniature is copied from one of those engravings.

When an engraver copies a portrait, the engraved plate will show the sitter facing in the same direction as the direction as the original. However, a print taken from that engraved plate, will then be a mirror image and show the sitter facing in the opposite direction to the original portrait.

Thus to ensure that the sitter is facing in the same direction as the original, an intermediate stage may be necessary, where a second engraving is made copying from a print made from the first engraving, so that when an image is printed from the second engraved plate, the sitter will be facing the correct direction.

(This has some parallels with the process by which vinyl records used to be produced. That was a five stage process involving; the original wax recording matt, a mould, a master, a stamper, and then the pressing available for sale.)

In the 18C and 19C an engraver copying a previous engraving may have never seen the original to know which way the sitter should be facing.

Additionally, when paintings were made by copying an engraving with a reversed image, oil portraits could appear that also faced the wrong direction. In such circumstances, the colouring of the oil copy could also differ from colours in the original.

Two examples of these varieties are shown here, one with a blue jacket instead of brown and the other a brown jacket, but with a reversed image.

As can be seen when making a comparison, the background colouring of the second miniature now added to the collection is different to that of the Hoppner oil and there are other minor differences, for example in the detail of the hair. This implies an intermediate stage between the original oil and the miniature. 1291

Hancock, Robert - portrait of John Williams

2007-09-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

This unsigned miniature is a good example of how research can be undertaken, based upon a few brief comments on the rear of a miniature, and with the research process being enormously satisfying.

This sitter is named as John Williams and despite that being a relatively common name, with some effort it has been possible to backtrack to his family. It has also been possible to attribute an artist to the miniature.

The process is outlined at some length below as an example of the similar methods used to identify other artists and sitters in this collection. In this case it has been possible to go back nearly 200 years.

Although the miniature is not signed and the backing is missing, it has been attributed to Robert Hancock of Bristol who was active around 1820-1833.

As John Williams came from Bristol that is a major clue, but the attribution also being from by a comparison of the pose of the sitter, even though it is more full front, and the style of painting the heads in the pair of miniatures shown here. Both are signed R Hancock, one being inscribed on the rear "Painted by R Hancock - John Street Bristol - January 1825".

The frame for the John Williams miniature dates from around 1960 and hence the inscriptions on that portrait date from then, or even more recently. In such circumstances, there can often be slight errors in the verbal record of a family when it is transcribed or recorded at a later date. However, as shown with comments on the TV programmes "Who Do You Think You Are?" and "The Antiques Roadshow", there is often more than a grain of truth in a verbal family history.

There are two groups of inscriptions on the rear of the frame. One reads "John Williams, Lord Mayor, Melbourne, Australia 1881, uncle of Alice Shattuck Tonk." The second reads "Alice Shattuck Tonk, born in Bristol, England 1814. Mother of Clara Tonk Rich. For John". There are also several other words under the cellotape, which are hard to read, but include the word "brother". It is probable some of this information was transcribed from the rear of an earlier discarded frame, thus introducing risk of transcription errors.

Before bidding on this miniature, which came from an estate in Kansas City, Missouri, a preliminary search was made to determine whether a John Williams was Lord Mayor of Melbourne in 1881, or indeed if there had ever been a Lord Mayor named John Williams. The answer in both cases was no, and also the term Lord Mayor was not used until 1902, prior to that they were only Mayors. Additionally, as the facial hair on the sitter shown dates from around 1820, a date of 1881 does not fit.

Thus the Lord Mayor comment was discounted at this point and a blank drawn with that line of research. Nevertheless, it did seem an unlikely comment to record, unless there was some element of truth in it.

Without a firm date or location, a name like John Williams is almost impossible to trace. Thus, the search proper began with the other names, complicated by various issues, such as some records referring to Shattock and some to Shattuck.

Initially, this research was also unsuccessful, but then a marriage record was found for Clara Alice Tonk and Hampton Rich in Chicago, IL on 3 Sep 1902. This was the first peg in the ground. From this point it was possible to come forward to the 1910 census and find Hampton aged 31, and Clara A Rich aged 30, living in Ionia, Michigan with their daughter Clara aged 6, and where Hampton Rich was a merchandise buyer.

From this it was possible to calculate Clara's birth year of 1880. Then go to the 1900 census and find Clara before she married. There she was living with her widowed father Max Tonk aged 48, who was a piano stool manufacturer, born in Germany in Nov 1851 and who had arrived in the United States in 1853. Clara stated her birth date as Jan 1880, her birthplace as Illinois, and her mother's birthplace as England.

From here it was possible to go back to the 1880 census and find Max Tonk aged 28, his wife Alice aged 27 and their daughter Clara aged five months. Max gave his occupation as furniture making and they had one servant so he was moderately successful. At this point, without a marriage record for Max and Alice, it would have been difficult to find her maiden name.

However, the back of the miniature gave the next clue as it refers to Alice Shattuck Tonk. Given her age of 28 in the 1880 census, it indicated she was born around 1852 in England. This did not agree with the date of 1814 shown on the rear of the miniature, but did explain why earlier attempts to research Alice Shattuck using an 1814 birth date had been unsuccessful.

The next stage was to go to the 1870 census. Here the Shattuck family was obvious and living in Ward 16 Chicago IL. John Shattock, a clerk in a store was aged 60, his wife Emily 50 and there were six children, including Alice Shattuck then aged 16, and so born around 1854.

The Shattock family still lived in Chicago in the 1880 census, but Emily is now a widow, living with her are several of her sons and daughters.

With a bit more research, the family was next found in the 1861 English census, living at 73 Spencer Street, Everton, Liverpool. John Shattock was absent from home, but Emily described herself as "Cotton Brokers' Clerk's wife", her age as 41 (i.e. born in 1819) and her birthplace as Bristol, Somerset. Alice Maud Mary Shattock was aged 8, giving a birth year of 1853 and her birthplace was London.

The reason for the Shattock family moving to the United States is uncertain, although probable they were seeking a new life. From the various census records below, it is seen John Shattock, was a solicitor in 1841 and 1851, a cotton broker's clerk in 1861, and a clerk in store in 1870. Thus one gains the impression he gradually slid down the employment tree.

There is support for this view at The Jurist - Google Books Result where in the "Jurist" for 1855 there is a reference under the heading Insolvent Debtors, which records "the following prisoners are ordered to be brought up before a Judge of the County Court to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute...At the County Court of Lancashire, Lancaster on Jan 19 at 11.00am....John Shattock, Tranmere, near Liverpool, attorney-at-law....".

As mentioned below, John Shattock was living in London in 1851 as a solicitor, but in 1861 his family was in Liverpool and he was no longer a solicitor, hence it seems likely this prisoner was him. In 1861 he was not at his home and could well have been in prison at the time, although he has not yet been located in the 1861 census. In 1861 Emily described herself as the wife of a clerk, so John had lost his ability to practice law. That would explain why his job in 1861 as a clerk and suggests the family moved to the United States to avoid the stigma that could have otherwise attached to their children.

As Emily's father was quite prosperous, perhaps her father, who appears in the 1851 census, but not in the 1861 census, supported the family while John was in jail for a period, and then Emily's inheritance cleared their debts and paid for their passage to the United States.

At this point it could be seen that the information on the rear of the miniature was coming together, although the generations were a little jumbled. It was not Alice Shattuck Tonk, who was born in Bristol in 1814, but her mother Emily Williams Shattock who was born there in 1819. This is exactly the kind of mistake that arises in verbal family histories.

The family appears in the 1851 English census at 11 Remmington St, Finsbury Circus, London. Here John Shattock is a solicitor aged 40 and Emily aged 31 describes herself as solicitor's wife. From the various birthplaces of the children, it is obvious the family was almost continuously on the move, with the eldest, Emily aged 11 born at Bishop's Lydeard, Somerset, and others at Bristol in Somerset, at Kensington in Surrey, and at Islington in Middlesex and with later children born in London. This supports the view of a man moving around the country one step ahead of his creditors until he was caught.

Interestingly, with the family at the time of the 1851 census, there is a visitor named William Williams, aged 26, a merchant's clerk, born in Bedminster, Somerset.

This is getting closer to John Williams and the link is strengthened by finding a marriage record for John Shattock and Emily Williams for AMJ 1839 in Bedminster. Thus it seems highly likely the William Williams visiting in the 1851 census, was a younger brother of Emily, being born in 1825.

The 1841 census was the next place to search for the John Williams of the miniature, but with trepidation, as it had to be via a search for Emily's brother William Williams and his birth date of 1825, as Emily was married in 1841. Additionally, the 1841 census is less detailed than later census records.

Thus it was very daunting to look at the first page of 50 William Williams in the 1841 census, all born in Somerset around 1825, and think how long it would take to try and check just the first page!

Then, the second name leapt out, William Williams, born about 1824 in Bedminister, Somerset.

It may sound odd, but on looking at this record, there was almost a sense that the people being researched were guiding my hand. For there was William Williams, aged 17 a coachbuilder, living with his father John Williams aged 50, and his elder brother John Williams aged 18, both also coachbuilders, all at their home in Wellington St, Bedminster, Bristol.

Not content with this, also living in the house was Emily Shattock, aged 22 and her two children, Emily 15 mths and Ann two weeks. There could not be more conclusive proof it was the right Williams family. Emily must have been staying there while her baby was born. Her mother is absent and has perhaps died, but the two female servants aged 60 and 50, would have been able to look after her.

In 1841 her husband John Shattock is recorded as a solicitor, living at their home in Bishop's Lydeard, four miles from Taunton, some 50 miles from Bristol, with one servant. As there are a number of Shattock families in this small village in 1841, it seems it is near the ancestral home of John Shattock, who gave his place of birth in 1851 as Ford Norton, Somerset.

As Norton Fitzwarren is between Taunton and Bishop's Lydgeard, this is likely to be the Ford farm, Norton Fitzwarren mentioned at SOMERSET ARCHIVE AND RECORD SERVICE SOMERSET RECORD OFFICE ... where there is possible reference to this John Shattock, "release of reversion by Sam. Kebby Shattock of Ford Farm, Norton Fitzwarren, gent., to his mother Hannah Shattock of 3 cotts., gardens and an orchard in Norton Street, 1833; mortgage by John Shattock of Norton Fitzwarren, gent. to James Turner of Staplegrove of 4 cotts., gardens and orchard cont. 2 ac. called Three Mens Ground 1836 and further mortgage by Shattock and Turner to William Hewett of Norton Fitzwarren, brewer, 1839, assignment of property by Hewett to James Slape Shattock of Bristol, grocer, 1842". However, there is also a christening of John Shattock on 14 Oct 1810 in Bristol. For other local Shattocks, see also Bishops Lydeard Parish "Blessed Virgin Mary" Bishops Transcripts and Bishops Lydeard Parish "Blessed Virgin Mary" Bishops Transcripts

The residential area for the Williams' home in Bristol seems to be good, with the Williams having two servants and their neighbours also having servants and occupations such as Merchant, Accountant, Mason, of Independent Means, and another Coachbuilder. In the early 19C, top coachbuilders would have been highly regarded master craftsmen, similar to the famous furniture makers of the time and with clients from the more wealthy areas of society.

So who do I think the sitter is in the miniature. I think it is John Williams senior, who from the 1851 census was born in 1789 in Derham (probably Dyrham, nr Hinton, Gloucs). At the time of the miniature being say, 1820, he would have been aged about 30 and that fits with the apparent age of the sitter. I am not familiar with uniforms, but the uniform the sitter is wearing looks more ceremonial, than army. Thus John Williams, now a coachbuilder, may have had a former occupation requiring him to wear livery as a coachman for a grand house, or had perhaps had some civic duty that required him to wear a dress uniform. Later descendants probably thought it was his portrait wearing the robes of the Lord Mayor of Melbourne.

In the course of this research, one feels quite some sympathy for his daughter, Emily Williams Shattock. She appears to have been an educated woman from a fairly prosperous family. When she married solicitor John Shattock, she would have been expecting a comfortable life with servants, a nice house and good prospects for her children. Instead, her husband was prosecuted for insolvency, she emigrated away from her family, and none of her children appear to have followed professional careers.

And what about the Lord Mayor of Melbourne?

Well, in 1866/67 the Mayor of Melbourne was a William Williams. I have not yet proved a link, but I have a strong feeling that the Mayor was actually Emily Williams Shattock's brother, the merchant's clerk, William Williams, who was visiting Emily at the time of the 1851 census. He would have been the son of the sitter in the miniature and also the uncle of Alice Shattuck Tonk, as recorded on the reverse of the miniature.

On 9 Nov of that year, 1851, the first news of the gold discoveries was published in the Melbourne Argus. Melbourne grew rapidly as a result and many merchants became very wealthy. William may have emigrated after the news broke. In 1866, he would have been aged 41 and possibly had become a successful merchant in Melbourne, where the population grew from 29,000 in 1851 to 123,000 in 1854. 1271

Robertson, Charles - portrait of a man in a blue coat

2007-07-19T17:55:00.000-07:00

This miniature was described only as a "memorial portrait pendant" when it was acquired. As the auction was in Philadelphia, prior to arrival it was thought the miniature was likely to be by Walter Robertson (1750-1802) who worked in Philadelphia PA between 1794 and 1796.

In speaking of Walter Robertson, Dale Johnson notes; "Features frequently found in Robertson's miniatures are round blue eyes, a solemn expression, powdered hair tied back in a queue against a light brown hatched background; also a high-collared blue waistcoat with brass buttons, a gold vest, and a soft white jabot".

However, on arrival it was possible to make a closer inspection. As a result it is now thought more likely to be painted by Charles Robertson (1760-1821), the brother of Walter Robertson, although Walter is still a possibility.

Charles was a member of a prominent family of Dublin jewellers and miniaturists. He worked in Dublin for most of his career, although he did spend some time in London.

The rear of the case shown here is almost identical with a case of 1785 that contains a miniature attributed to the Buck family of Cork, Ireland. This can be seen at
The Art of High Living: Miniature Goldwork by Elle Shushan from ...

In "Treasures to Hold", Paul McCaffrey comments on the style of Charles Robertson in the following terms; "Charles Robertson deployed a distinctive use of colour in his miniature portraits, using a particular slate grey-blue in the flesh tones" and "The background is painted in parallel lines of blue and grey. Subtle variations of colour and pale tones blend into each other and his outlines are slightly fuzzy. The blue-grey tones are also indicative of him".

Two close-ups here show these features, in particular the parallel grey and blue lines in the background, the blue in the facial detail, and the overall fuzzy outlines.

The sitter is unknown. 1250

Unknown - portrait of a lady wearing a bonnet

2007-07-19T17:30:00.000-07:00

Miniatures by unattributed artists or of unidentified sitters tend to be outside the scope of the collection, unless they are particularly interesting.

This one falls into that category as it is well painted, with clear striking facial features, and illustrates well the costume of the late 18C.

The lady has a high bonnet with a blue ribbon. At the bottom right the flowered pattern of her dress can be seen.

The miniature is thought to be British, although there is a possibility it could be American.

It is also quite large for a miniature of that date being 110 mm by 75 mm and it is hoped that it can be attributed to an artist in due course.

The sitter is unknown. 1258

Unknown - portrait of Rev Bryan Faussett

2007-04-10T21:15:00.000-07:00

As they did not look to be very special and were unidentified, this pair of miniatures were acquired as one lot and were expected to be resold separately, to help fund other acquisitions for the collection.

However, before doing so it was decided to see if the partial newspaper cutting shown below and glued on the reverse of the frame could be used to try and identify the sitter.

The cutting appeared as if it was likely to be part of an obituary. There are several key words that have been used to identify the sitter; "Faussett was curate of Nettlecombe"," two children, first a daughter born in", "born in 1840", "amicably together", and "Seaton Carew".

These words have enabled the identification of the sitter as most probably Rev Bryan Faussett (2 Jan 1812 - 30 Jul 1855). What is more noteworthy is that he was the plaintiff in a scandalous divorce case actioned on the grounds of adultery in the mid 19C. It is thought the miniature of the lady, painted around 1825, may depict a close relative of his. Correspondence with a very helpful researcher of Faussett family history has confirmed that this miniature of Bryan Faussett does bear a family resemblance to other family portraits.

This younger Rev Bryan Faussett was the grandson of a famous antiquarian of the 18C, another Rev Bryan Faussett (1720-1776) who had excavated many ancient burial mounds and amassed a large collection of ancient antiquities and over 5,000 ancient coins. He had so many duplicate coins that he had 150 pounds weight of bronze coins melted down and cast into a bell in 1766.

He had an unsurpassed private collection, but in 1853 the British Museum declined an offer to purchase the collection from his descendants, whereupon a Mr Joseph Mayer purchased it for the Liverpool Museum, where it remains. See Rev. Bryan Faussett and also for a photograph of the Kingston Brooch one of his finds see The Kingston Brooch

The surprisingly full Times newspaper account of the 1849 divorce proceedings of the younger Rev Bryan Faussett is very interesting and can be read at S244 but a summary is as follows. On 4 Oct 1837 Bryan Faussett, then a curate had married the fifth daughter of Sir John Trevelyan Bart of Nettelcombe. Her name was Helena Caroline Trevelyan (1815-1898) and they had two children, Maria Helena Faussett born 13 Jul 1838 and Godfrey Trevelyan Faussett (28 Feb 1840-1915).

The Times 1849 account of the Rev Bryan Faussett divorce proceedings, reveals that while at Seaton Carew, his wife, Helena Faussett commenced, or continued, a relationship with her cousin who was six years younger than her. He was Walter Blackett Trevelyan (1821-1894) and she had a child by him, Herbert Trevelyan, born 7 Aug 1847.

The divorce action was delayed until Rev Bryan Faussett could obtain funding for the costs from his father, Dr Godfrey Faussett (1780-?). The action involved two hearings in the Consistory Court commencing on 31 May 1849, followed by two readings of a bill in the House of Lords, as a special bill had to be passed by the House, even though it appears the action was largely undefended. The bill was necessary as between 1700 and 1857 the only way of achieving a divorce was by private Act of Parliament. As the law was changed only a few years later, it would appear that the Faussett bill was part of the impetus leading to the change in the divorce law.

Among the many Lords present for the hearing of the Bill were the Duke of Wellington and Lord Redesdale, a relative of the famous Mitford sisters. The citation for the resultant Act is [1849 (12 & 13 Vict) c. 33]. The passing of the Act meant that Bryan and Helena were divorced on 17 Jul 1849. Helena then married Walter Blackett Trevelyan a little later in 1849 and they had a further two children, Constance Helena Trevelyan born in 1859 and Willoughby Fenwick Trevelyan born in 1857.

Rev Bryan Faussett died a few years later in 1855 and was an elder brother of Robert Godfrey Faussett, see NPG P7(16) a close friend of Charles Dodgson, aka Lewis Carroll, the author of "Alice in Wonderland".

After the divorce it seems Helena abandoned her two eldest children, as neither were living with her for the 1851 census, even though they were then aged 12 and 10. Maria was living with her grandfather Dr Godfrey Faussett. Also, for the 1861 census, Maria was living with an uncle. Godfrey born in 1840, has not been located in the 1851 census, but may have been at a boarding school. In the 1861 census, he appears to have been a soldier at Aldershot under the name G Fossett. He later changed his name to Godfrey Trevelyan Godfrey-Faussett, possibly to downplay the Trevelyan portion of his name. In the 1871 census he described himself as "Sub-Inspector of Factories - landowner" but was quite wealthy, living with his family and a number of servants.

His son, Commander (later Sir) Bryan Godfrey-Fossett (1864-1940) was an aide to King George V when he was Duke of York and accompanied him on a visit to New Zealand in 1901, see Photographs of Government Houses, New Zealand. (PA1-f-194) By chance for the 1901 census, the Royal party was on board HMS Ophir in the Great Bitter Lake, Suez Canal, Egypt and can be seen there in the census records. In 1907 Sir Bryan married Eugenie Fanny Eveline Dudley Ward, see lafayette.150m.com/dud5279.html and also Janus: The Papers of Sir Bryan Godfrey-Faussett For a letter written by the Prince of Wales to Captain Faussett during WWI see Somme > Personal Stories > The Prince of Wales : Letter written by ... Also a biography of Sir Bryan was written in 2003 by George Godfrey-Faussett called "Royal Servant - Family Friend".

A nephew of Sir Bryan, named Bryan Trevor Godfrey-Faussett (1896-1970) was born in India where his father Richard Godfrey-Faussett was with the Indian Police Force. He became a brigadier in WWII and an ADC to King George VI in 1946. As recently as 1995, a great-great-great-grandson of Rev Bryan Faussett, Christopher Godfrey-Faussett married Lady Diana Evelyn Bowes-Lyon, a great grandniece of the Queen Mother and cousin of Queen Elizabeth II. The couple accompanied Queen Elizabeth II and other members of the Royal Family at the funeral service of the Queen Mother in 2002. See Memorial sites > The Queen Mother > Funeral arrangements > Funeral ...

Thus an apparently uninteresting miniature portrait has revealed an interesting family, who did not seem to have suffered socially from a major divorce scandal in 1849. In fact one might say the converse occurred. 1024a, 1024b.