Who was Eliza Hall Part 2 - Jane Austen and Jamaica

In my blog post dated 25 October 2015 I shared my research into the identity of Eliza Hall who was an early owner of the Rice Portrait of Jane Austen. You can find that post HERE.

In that post I recount how, according to letters held in the Bodleian Library Oxford, Colonel Thomas Austen, Jane Austen's second cousin, gave the portrait of Jane Austen to a friend of his, Eliza Hall, the wife of Thomas Harding Newman.

I also explained how many Austen scholars have been mistaken in believing that Eliza Hall was from the family of Hugh Kirkpatrick Hall of Hollybush Hall in Staffordshire. 

In fact, Eliza Hall was the daughter of a younger brother of Hugh Kirkpatrick Hall, Thomas Hall, and his wife Elizabeth Humffreys. They lived, not in the Midlands, but in Egham, Surrey, not far from Windsor. It is not known when Elizabeth Humffreys died but it seems likely she died when Eliza was young, possibly in childbirth. 

Eliza Hall's aunt, Ann Humffries, was married to Sir Henry Hawley of Leybourne Grange for over 40 years. At the time Ann Humffries married Henry Hawley in 1785, his four children from his first marriage to Dorothy Ashwood were under the age of 10 and Jane Austen was 10 years old. 

Two of the Hawley children later married into the Bridges family, who are known to have been close friends to the Austens and indeed, Elizabeth Bridges married Jane Austen's brother Edward. Henry Hawley's son Henry was a good friend of Edward Austen and in 1802 the two of them applied for a joint passport to travel to Paris. Three of the Hawley daughters are mentioned in Jane Austen's letters. 

However not only was Eliza Hall's aunt known to have been a friend of the Austens, it now transpires that there were other connections between Eliza Hall and Jane Austen - connections which also highlight the Austen family connections with Jamaican plantations and with slavery.

Jane Austen's grandmother Rebecca Hampson was the sister of Sir George Hampson, 5th Baronet of Taplow. 

Rebecca Hampson married firstly William Walter and secondly William Austen. The sons of the two marriages - William Hampson Walter and George Austen, Jane Austen's father, remained close all their lives.

The Hampson family owned plantations in Jamaica and after the death of the 5th Baronet in Jamaica in 1754, his estates passed to his eldest son, Sir George Hampson, 6th Baronet. Four years later, at Kingston Jamaica, this George married Mary Pinnock, who was the daughter of Thomas Pinnock, another Jamaican plantation owner.

In June 1773 George Hampson made his will in Kingston. He named his cousin John Cope Freeman as guardian of his two young children. The executors were named as James and Philip Pinnock, both brothers of his late wife Mary Pinnock who had died the previous year. 

At the end of that year, on 12 December 1773 Jane Austen's mother Cassandra wrote to Susannah Walter, the wife of William Hampson Walter, to say she was sorry to hear that Sir George Hampson had had a bad accident and that she hoped he would soon recover and be able to take George Walter [Susannah Walter's son] back to Jamaica with him next spring. 

It seems George Hampson never did return to Jamaica for towards the end of 1774 he wrote a codicil to his will in which he wrote that he had left Jamaica a few days after having written his will, which had been left in the care of James Pinnock and he then refers to his 'long and painful illness' during which time he was cared for by his sister Jane Louisa Hampson. As it was now clear he was going to die in England, he changed his executors to his cousins William Hampson Walter and Capel Cure. 

Sir George Hampson died in London on 25 December 1774 and was buried three days later at St Marylebone parish church.

James Pinnock, brother-in-law and friend of Sir George Hampson, was also a cousin by marriage to the father of Eliza Hall. James Pinnock's wife was Elizabeth Dehaney, daughter of George Dehaney of Jamaica. George Dehaney's sister Mary was married to Thomas Hall senior (b.1725) who was Eliza Hall's grandfather. George and Mary Dehaney's father was David Dehaney of the Point and Barbican sugar estates in Jamaica.

Like the Dehaneys and the Hampsons, the Hall family owned sugar plantations in Jamaica and were owners of large numbers of slaves. 

The Halls presence in Jamaica dated back to the end of the seventeenth century and for generations the family had amassed land, wealth and slaves on the island. Records of the Hall family including personal family papers are held at UC San Diego, which you can find HERE. On his death in 1772, the property of Thomas Hall (b. 1725) was listed as including 752 slaves and a total estate value of £58,613. You can read more about the Hall family and. their connection to slavery on the excellent UCL website Legacies of British Slave Ownership HERE.

The bulk of the Hall's Jamaican property went to the eldest son, Hugh Kirkpatrick Hall but younger sons William and Thomas Hall were also bequeathed substantial estates in Jamaica. Other estates were left to Philip Dehaney, eldest surviving brother of Thomas Hall's wife, Mary.

Here we can see then, the links between the plantation families of Hampson, Dehaney, Pinnock and Hall and how they were intertwined by marriages between the families.

Eliza Hall married Colonel Thomas Harding Newman on 29 December 1817. It was Harding Newman's second marriage; his first wife Harriet Cartwright died after the birth of their third child. He was 38, Eliza was ten years younger.

The epitome of the marriage settlement can be found in the records of UC San Diego HERE.

Eliza Hall's husband, Colonel Thomas Harding Newman, also came from a a family with interests in Jamaica - his grandfather Benjamin Newman had been born at Blue Hole in Jamaica of which Thomas Harding Newman inherited a share from his aunt Eliza Tharp, in 1831. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eliza Anne Hall's address on her marriage settlement is given as Cumberland Street Portman Square and her father is of the same address. Other parties to the marriage settlement were John Russell of Stubbers Essex, Benjamin Harding, John Hall, Captain Charles Hall and William Knight Dehaney.

Cumberland Street is now incorporated into Great Cumberland Place - running from Marble Arch to Bryanston Square - but when the street was built in the late 18th century it was split into three sections. Cumberland Street ran from Marble Arch (then known as Tyburn) up to the semicircular crescent which was known as Cumberland Place. The section between here and Bryanston Square was known as Cumberland Street Portman Square.

This was a fashionable part of London and had been built relatively recently; Cumberland Place was completed in 1789 and extended north to Bryanston Square in 1811. 

(Henry and Eliza Austen also lived in this fashionable area for a time - just around the corner at 24 Upper Berkeley Street from 1801-1804.) 

On 14 November 1791 Jane Austen's cousin Eliza de Feuillde (née Hancock) wrote from Orchard Street to Philadelphia (Phillida) Walter, the daughter of William Hampson Walter:

Did I tell you when I saw you in Town how very Noble a House our Cousin Hampson has got, he has left Wimpole Street and is now in Cumberland Place, where he has purchased a really magnificent Mansion.

Phillida evidently did not know the street as in the next letter, dated 23 December 1791, Eliza writes:

In answer to your enquiry concerning the Situation of Cumberland Place, a question which I assure you did not in the least surprise me, because it is part of the Town which few people are acquainted with from its having been very lately built...

Their cousin was Sir Thomas Philip Hampson, son of Sir George Hampson and Mary Pinnock and he had purchased the house at 10 Cumberland Place.

Not only was Eliza Hall, like the Hampsons, from a family who owned plantations in Jamaica; not only was her father Thomas Hall, like the Hampsons, related to the Pinnock family of Jamaica, but Thomas Philip Hampson also owned property in the same street as Thomas Hall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sir Thomas Philip Hampson was well known to Jane Austen. In her letter to Cassandra dated 25 April 1811 when she was staying with her brother Henry at Sloane Street we hear that she was

quite surrounded by acquaintance, especially Gentlemen; & what with Mr Hampson, M’ Seymour, M’ W. Knatchbull, M’ Guillemarde, M’ Cure, a Cap’ Simpson, brother to the Capt Simpson, besides M’ Walter & M’ Egerton, in addition to the Cookes & Miss Beckford & Miss Middleton, I had quite as much upon my hands as I could do.

In her letter to Cassandra from Henry Austen's house in London in November 1813 Jane Austen post scripted her letter with the comment 'We do not like Mr Hampson's scheme.' What the scheme was, we do not know, but it is likely it related to Henry's banking business.

In July 1813 Henry Austen had been appointed Receiver of Taxes for Oxfordshire. His guarantors for the position were brother Edward Austen Knight, Henry's uncle James Leigh Perrot and Thomas Philip Hampson. A bond of £73,000 was posted in 24 July 1813. According to Clive Caplan in his article Jane Austen's Banker Brother, the following spring Mr Hampson was found frequently attending the bank. The following year, 1815, Henry Austen's bank failed.

Thomas Philip Hampson died in 1820 and was succeeded by his son George Francis Hampson as the 8th Baronet of Taplow. 

It seems Jane Austen was not very too keen on George - she wrote to Cassandra in 1814:

I got the Willow yesterday, as Henry was not quite ready when I reached Henrietta Street  - I saw Mr Hampson there for a moment. he dines here tomorrow & proposed bringing his son; so I must submit to seeing George Hampson though I had hoped to go through Life without it. - It was one of my vanities, like your not reading Patronage.

The Austen family had other connections to the slave trade - George Austen was a trustee of property in Antigua owned by his friend James Nibbs for example - and Austen's own views on slavery continue to be a subject of debate. The purpose of this post however, is not to evaluate Austen's own opinion but to point out that in the case of the Rice Portrait the Jamaican plantations, slavery and the wealth derived from them were a feature of the lives of both the family of Jane Austen and the family of Eliza Hall and form yet another connection between these two women. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, in addition to Eliza Hall's aunt on her mother's side, Lady Ann Hawley of Leybourne Grange being known to be a friend of the Austen family, on her father's side the Hall family had strong connections to the Hampson family, close relatives and financial backer of Jane Austen's own brother Henry Austen. The sugar plantations of Jamaica form a direct link between Jane Austen's family and Eliza Hall's family. 

Eliza Hall was clearly no distant stranger to the Austens - and indeed it is possible that the reason Thomas Austen gave her the portrait of Jane Austen as a girl was because Eliza Hall was not only an admirer of the novelist but had also known Jane Austen personally.

If Eliza Hall had known Jane as now seems likely, then the journey the portrait took when it temporarily left the wider Austen family and passed into the temporary ownership of the Harding-Newmans is entirely understandable.

The connections between these families demonstrates that Deirdre Le Faye's theory that the portrait was of another family member altogether can be discarded - Eliza Hall had too many relatives who were close to the Austen family for this to have been the case.

Contrary to the claims of opponents of the picture, the provenance of the Rice Portrait is very straightforward indeed and much stronger than that of many other pictures hanging in the National Portrait Gallery! It was given by a relative of Jane Austen to Eliza Hall who had links to the Austen family as we have seen. Two generations later it was returned to John Morland Rice, the grandson of Jane's brother Edward, and it has remained within the Rice family ever since.

The chart below shows the documented provenance of the Rice Portrait.

Ps. Reading Le Faye's Chronology of Jane Austen and her Family, I was interested to note that a certain G Pinnock made some regular payments to Jane Austen's father, George Austen as follows:

18 Nov 1794 received £56.3s2d from G Pinnock
9 Jun 1795 receives £56.9s.3d from G Pinnock
13 Jan 1796 receives £53.1s.0d from G Pinnock
13 June 1796 Receives £70.13s0d from G Pinnock

I have no idea what these payments were for and if anyone can enlighten me or has any suggestions then I would be very grateful.


Thank you for reading.



Ellie Bennett
23/10/17

George Romney - children's hair

In this post I am looking at some paintings by George Romney.

Romney was a friend of Ozias Humphry, the artist who painted the Rice Portrait. For identification of Ozias Humphry as the artist responsible for the Rice Portrait, you can read art conservator Eva Schwan's report HERE. Page 13 shows Ozias Humphry's monogram in the lower left area of the portrait.

Humphry's signatures have also been detected on a 100 year-old photograph of the portrait, which you can read about on my blog HERE. In that post you can also read about how Romney and Humphry's style of painting were so similar that it took a celebrated court case in 1917 to determine that a painting of the Misses Waldegrave was in fact painted by Ozias Humphry and not George Romney. The case was decided when a preparatory sketch of the portrait was produced which showed Humphry's distinctive monogram of an H within an O.

Like Ozias Humphry, George Romney paintings date entirely to the eighteenth century. He was born in Dalton-in-Furness in 1732 and retired in ill-health to Kendal in 1799 where he died in 1802. So, we can be confident that, like Ozias Humphry, who was functionally blind by 1798, a portrait which is identified as a Romney, cannot date to the nineteenth century.

One of the objections which has been raised against the Rice Portrait, eg HERE, is that the hairstyle of the girl in the Rice Portrait dates the portrait to the nineteenth century, not the eighteenth. But is this correct? If the portrait was painted in 1788 or 1789 as the Austen family have always believed, then Jane would have been about 13 years old and still considered a child and it is therefore childrens' hairstyles that we should be looking at.

If Romney painted children with short, similar styles to the girl in the Rice Portrait, then this would demonstrate that the style could indeed date to the late eighteenth century.

Did he?

Well, let's take a look.

First up - a painting which many believe to be his masterpiece: The Gower Family: The Children of Granville,2nd Earl Gower painted in 1777, which hangs at Abbot Hall Art Gallery in Kendal.

The painting depict the five youngest children of Lord Gower. The eldest girl, with the tambourine is Anne, child of his second marriage, whilst the four younger children are by his third wife, Lady Susannah Stewart.

The girl in the green dress on the left is Georgina Granville, born in April 1769, who later married William Elliot and became Countess of St Germans. Look more closely here at her short hair:

Next, here are the Misses Cumberland, painted in 1773.

The daughters of dramatist Richard Cumberland, Elizabeth (b1759) is on the left and Sophia (b1761) is on the right. They are holding a copy of their father's play The Fashionable Lover, published in 1772. Sophia therefore would be around 13 years old.

Here is Sophia's hair, close-up:

Here are some more examples:

The Vernon Children:

Two Children in a Wooded Landscape:

Portrait of Maria Emily Fagniani as a child (Painted in 1783 when she was aged about 12):

Now compare to the style of hair of the children in these portraits to the style of the hair in the Rice Portrait. Remember, all these portraits were painted before 1800.

And yet it is argued that the hairstyle of the girl in the Rice Portrait cannot date to before 1800.

What do you think?

Cambridge Jane Austen Society birthday lunch

The Rice Portrait

Last month I was delighted to be invited to speak to the Cambridge Branch of the Jane Austen Society, at their annual celebration of Jane Austen's birthday. The subject was my ongoing research into Jane Austen's portraits, and especially the Rice Portrait.

What's more, the owner of the Rice Portrait, Mrs Anne Rice, very generously agreed to arrange to bring the portrait to Cambridge; the first time that the portrait has been displayed in public in this country for many years. What a delightful day it was, and what a wonderful experience to be able to talk about this portrait in the beautiful location of Queens' College Cambridge with the picture being in the very room!

Firstly, however, a note about the name of the college itself. As I learned from my hosts, Queens' College is, as far as I am aware, the only college in the country about which there is a lively debate on punctuation. Queens' college was founded in 1448 by Margaret of Anjou and refounded in 1465 by Elizabeth Woodville. But it was only later  - much later - that the apostrophe moved to the end of the word 'queens' - the first known use is in 1823. Before this the college was known as Queen's  - in the singular. You can read more about Queen's vs Queens' debate on the college website HERE.

Cloister Court, Queens' College
photo © Joana Starnes

Within Queens' College, the Mathematical Bridge leads to the oldest building in Cambridge, the President's Lodge which dates to around 1460. Tour guides will tell you that the bridge was built by Newton using nothing but wood with no bolts to hold it together. The story goes that after the great man's death, Newton's students took the bridge down and attempted to rebuild it but failed - and so were forced to use iron pins, nuts and bolts to reassemble it again. Its a lovely story but fanciful. In fact the bridge was built later in the seventeenth century and you can read more about the history of the Mathematical Bridge HERE. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful construct and I cannot imagine a more wonderful means of crossing the River Cam and to enter the historic older buildings of Queens' College.

The Mathematical Bridge
photo © Steff

Before lunch, I was invited to take a look at the stunning Old Hall, the medieval dining hall which has been restored to the opulent and magnificent decor created by William Morris in the 1860s. I love William Morris's designs and to see this hall, restored to such beauty, was an additional extra treat.

The Old Hall
photo © Joana Starnes

Keith Mills in the Great Hall
photo © Joana Starnes

So, on to the pre-luncheon gathering and to see the Rice Portrait on display. The portrait has been painstakingly restored by art restorer, Eva Schwan over a period of two years. Reproductions do not do it justice. It is only when you view the portrait itself that you can appreciate the beauty of this picture; the delicate spots and patterns of the muslin dress, the texture of her hair and the way she seems to look at you from whichever angle you stand. It is also only when you view the portrait itself that you can see the monogram of the artist in the bottom left quadrant. An H within an O, the monogram of Ozias Humphry, which Eva Schwan described in her report when she had finished her work.

Some members of the society dressed in period costume for the event and looked fabulous. It was definitely a good opportunity for a photo shoot!

Hazel and Keith Mills
photo © Vicki Smith

Vicki Smith and Hazel Mills
photo © Vicki Smith

Me and Mrs Anne Rice
photo © Vicki Smith

We and the portrait moved into the adjoining room for luncheon. I was a little overawed to be given the seat at the head of the table and even more so when I realised how knowledgeable the group are about all things Austen. I had been asked to speak for thirty minutes and I wondered whether I would be able to talk for this long. Of course I needn't have worried. The group were so interested in the story and with the presence of Mrs Rice and her son Johnnie who shared their story, the time flew by. Before I knew it, one of the party said that they had enjoyed the talk immensely but really had to leave - and it was only then that I realised that I had been speaking for over an hour and a half.

That's me in the distance!
photo © Joana Starnes

Preparing for lunch!
photo © Vicki Smith

The event was covered in the local press and a lively debate, primarily on the dating of the dress of the girl in the portrait followed. You can read the article HERE.

During lunch I also learned something from the Society which I had not really registered before - that the male heroes in Austen's novels are Oxford men, while the Cambridge men are cads. This set me thinking and when I returned home I did a little research.

Helpfully, Charles Issawi wrote a short essay on this topic some thirty years ago. Sure enough, of the characters whose education we know about, Henry Tilney and James Morland (Northanger Abbey), Edward Bertram (Mansfield Park) and Edward Ferrars (Sense and Sensibility) are all Oxford men. George Wickham (Pride and Prejudice) and Henry Crawford (Mansfield Park), on the other hand, are Cambridge men. And as Charles Issawi pointed out, both Wickham and Crawford, in addition to their other sins, both elope. Wickham elopes with Elizabeth Bennet's younger sister Lydia but only after having run after Mary King and her ten thousand pounds. Henry Crawford has an adulterous affair with Maria Bertram after her marriage. In Austen's world Cambridge men, it seems, are not to be trusted.

Which leads me back to the family of old Francis Austen, who I believe commissioned Ozias Humphry to paint the portrait of Austen which we know as the Rice Portrait.

I have speculated before on this blog that the Rice Portrait may have been an embarrassment to the Austen family for some reason, which may explain why it was so readily given away. I also think there may have been bad feeling between the Hampshire Austens and their cousins, the family of Francis Motley Austen. This is supported by a letter from Jane's brother Henry Austen to his nephew James Edward Austen Leigh written in 1847. (You can read the full letter on the excellent 'Reveries under the sign of Austen' blog HERE.) Henry says of his relatives: 'It is better to be lucky than wise; It is no scandal to say that my aforesaid relations of West Kent never raised any alarming fears of their setting even the Medway on fire'.

Henry goes on to say that the living of Wickham, in the gift of Francis Austen, should rightfully have gone to his father George Austen rather than his cousin Henry, 'not that he preferred him but because he was the son of an older Brother than my father. Primogeniture, with all its ramifications, was more in those days than since the Reform Bill.'

Jane's letters also reveal resentment to the wealth of her relatives in West Kent. 'Such ill gotten Wealth can never prosper!' she wrote to her sister, on hearing that Francis Motley Austen's third son John had inherited the old Austen family home of Broadford at Horsmonden.

I think it is possible, although of course I have no proof, that old Francis Austen, who had always looked after his nephew George and his family, may have intended that George Austen's two daughters Cassandra and Jane would marry his own grandsons, Francis and Thomas, the eldest sons of Francis Motley Austen, who were exactly the same age as Cassandra and Jane respectively. Perhaps this was the reason the portraits of Jane and Cassandra were commissioned (for more on Cassandra's missing portrait see HERE).

If so, obviously the plan never came to fruition. Old Francis Austen died in 1791 and his son Francis Motley inherited his father's considerable wealth. His eldest son Francis Lucius married Penelope Cholmeley in 1805. His second son, Colonel Thomas Austen, married Margaretta Morland in 1803. She was the daughter of wealthy Thomas Morland of Lamberhust. (Margaretta's grandmother Ellen Johnson was the daughter of slave trader and 'founder of Liverpool' Sir Thomas Johnson).

Unlike his father, his brothers and Jane' Austen's own father and brothers, Colonel Thomas Austen did not attend Oxford. He was admitted to St John's College Cambridge on 28 June 1793. By October 1794 his name was off the roll as in that month he joined the 94th Regiment as captain. He remained in the army until he inherited from his father, his elder brother Francis having pre-deceased his father.

Colonel Thomas Austen

It's hard to resist a comparison with George Wickham. Both are Cambridge men. Both bought into positions in the military. (Breihan and Caplan on Jane Austen and the Militia is an excellent read on this topic.)

George Wickham played by Adrian Lukis

Then there is Austen's choice of name for her anti-hero. Wickham is the name of the manor which belonged the family of old Francis Austen's second wife, Jane Chadwick. Henry Austen explains what happened in the letter to his nephew James Edward Austen Leigh mentioned above:

'Wickham estate & advowson was the property of a Mr. Lennard some ninety years ago. He left it to his widow for life, & afterwards to his and her only child, a Lennard. The widow was legally attacked by the nearest male relatives of this defunct - she flung her cause into the hands of my Great Uncle, old Frank Austen; he won the cause and the wealthy widow's heart and hand. A very pleasing woman she was; I remember her about 1780, & thought her a great deal handsomer than her Daughter who always lived with her & my uncle until her death.'

The widow, Jane Chadwick, had married Samuel Lennard of Wickham Court in about 1750. He was the illegitimate son of Sir Samuel Lennard and four years after his death in 1754 she married Francis Austen. Jane Chadwick's young daughter Mary Lennard evidently came to live with them too, according to Henry. It seems that during this time Wickham Court was let to Samuel Beachcroft, Governor of the Bank of England from 1775-77.

Wickham Court

Jane Austen née Chadwick was later named as one of Austen's godmothers. She died in 1782 and  two years later her daughter Mary Lennard married Major Sir John Farnaby of Kippington. The couple moved into Wickham Court sometime after her marriage; Farnaby is certainly listed as resident in 1798. Wickham Court remained in the Lennard/Farnaby family until it was sold in 1929. It is now a private school and wedding venue.

George Wickham is one of the most unpleasant of Austen's characters. A scoundrel, a layabout, a gold-digger and a liar. Was it coincidence that, like Thomas Austen, he was a Cambridge man and a military man? Was it also a coincidence that Austen gave him a name which was bound to resonate with that branch of the family, being the name of the estate belonging to Francis Motley Austen's half-sister Mary Lennard?

Or was Jane Austen exacting revenge for some past wrong in the only way she could, through the pages of her novels?

I would like to extend my grateful thanks to Hazel Mills and to all the members of Cambridge Jane Austen Society - for inviting me to speak, for lively and erudite debate on the Rice Portrait and on Jane Austen and her life, and for offering me the most wonderful experience of joining you all in the magnificent surroundings of Queens' College, Cambridge.

My lovely gift -
A beautiful watercolour of Queens' College