Bretton Hall Conservatory

in Yorkshire

The object of interest here was the largest free-standing iron and glass conservatory of its time, was erected for Mrs Beaumont at Bretton Hall in 1827, by W. and D. Bailey of Holborn. It was removed in 1832. The gardens also included a number of other hot-houses.

The remarkable double dome-shaped iron and glass conservatory featured rolled wrought iron glazing bars invented by John Claudius Loudon. It was heated by steam. The upper dome was supported by cast iron columns, and was capped by a large copper crown.

At the outset, Messrs Bailey probably anticipated that they would face only technical difficulties.

The purchaser, Diana Beaumont of Bretton Hall, wanted the grandest conservatory that could be envisaged, apparently regardless of expense, and ordered it from W. and D. Bailey. When it was trial-assembled at the works in Holborn, unglazed, it was observed by the purchaser's agents to be very unstable. Messrs Bailey were well aware that the structure would become stable when fully glazed. The Beaumonts evidently experienced 'buyer's remorse', and refused to pay. Court cases ensued. Bailey's took legal action against the Beaumonts .....

April 1826 'In the Court of Common Pleas on Wednesday the 26th. ult. a rule was made in a cause, the trial which is likely to he interesting to those engaged in mechanical inventions and scientific speculations. The case was that of
BAILEYS V. BEAUMONT, ESQ.
Mr. Sergeant Wilde obtained a rule to change the venue from Middlesex to York, on the ground of the work having been done in the county of York, and that the Jury upon the trial of the cause, for the ends of justice, ought to have a proper view of it.
Mr. Sergeant Vaugham now shewed cause against such rule being made absolute, upon the affidavits of the plaintiffs, who, he stated, were the patentees of the new mode erecting curvilinear iron hot-houses, and had been engaged by the defendant to erect a stupendous and domical conservatory on his pleasure grounds at Bretton Hall, Yorkshire. The affidavit stated that the contract for the work had been made in Middlesex for the sum 5,0001. and upwards, and that the greater part of the work had been fitted together at the manufactory of the plaintiffs in Holborn, previous to its being erected in Yorkshire; also, that it was yet in an unfinished state, and might vibrate or be shaken by wind, but it would be perfectly strong and substantial when it was glazed and completed ; and that the witnesses to facts were very numerous.
The Lord Chief Justice. — There can be no question that the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, might be induced to travel out of its ordinary course, and upon sufficient grounds direct the venue to be changed from Middlesex to York ; but in this case the contract appears to have been made — the greatest part of the work performed — and the witnesses all reside in this county. It would he manifestly injurious to the plaintiffs to send the cause down to the Assizes at York, for a Jury to view the work, who could not be supposed to be sufficiently mechanical and scientific to be competent judges of a novel and ingenious mode of construction. A Jury of the county of Middlesex is composed of men of business, perfectly competent to decide on the testimony of men of science, and the ends of justice would be better obtained by a trial in Middlesex, where the decision would be prompt. I am of opinion the rule ought to be discharged.'

May 1826 'COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. BAILEY AND ANOTHER against BEAUMONT, ESQ.
This was an action brought to recover the amount of £6,500. for a charge for erecting a conservatory, of very peculiar construction, and such a one as was not to be found at any other place in this country, or even in Europe.
The plaintiffs are ironmongers in Holborn ; the defendant, Colonel Beaumont, of Northumberland, and Breton Hall, Yorkshire.
The work for which the action was brought was the erection of a domical conservatory, the cubic space which was represented by Mr. Searjeant Vaughan to contain four times the cubic space of the Court of Common Pleas, for which there was an estimate given; but the works, from alterations, additions, and improvements, were increased to a sum amounting to £6,500. for iron-work alone. There were also attached thereto two boilers capable of working two 7-horse power steam engines, and a vinery : these were included in the sum stated. The work was first proposed in 1820, but was not completed until the autumn of the last year, when the agent of the defendant objected to the conservatory, as unfit for the purposes intended, and to the charges ; and that, in fact, the upper dome would not carry the glass; it never had been glazed, and a great number of witnesses deposed that it twisted with the wind its unglazed state, and that if the glass was placed therein, the effect of the Wind would he such that it would dangerous. Many witnesses were also called with respect to the value of the work, who thought the charges enormous. Some of them were engineers in London, also iron-founders ; and some from the country, who had been accustomed to erecting hot-houses and conservatories, but none of them had ever seen work equal to the one in question.
For the plaintiffs, a great number of witnesses testified that they thought the work was an extraordinary work of art, and in every way complete ; the materials were of the best kind, and that, altogether, the charges were fair, but they also had never seen a similar structure.
The Lord Chief Justice charged the Jury, that it was for them to say, as had been alleged by the defendant, whether or not the work was perfectly useless. If any part could be used, they were to say the value of that part; and if a sum was necessary to complete any part of the conservatory, or if, as it appeared to many of the witnesses for the defendant, it was insufficient for the intended purpose, they would deduct such sum as would complete it. Certainly one fact should be taken into account — that the house had never been glazed; and they had heard from men of eminence that it would be made stronger when so done, and that the twisting and vibrating complained of would cease ; but, at the same time, it was to be observed, that they had not seen it in a high wind, as the witnesses for the defendant had done. There was strong evidence on both sides, it was for them to determine.
The Jury, after retiring for nearly an hour, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs — Damages, £4,600; costs, 40s.; being a deduction of £2,000. from the enormous demand, and reserving to the defendant the right of action for damages, should the conservatory, when glazed, prove inefficient.
The trial of the cause lasted near nine hours; and it was 10 o’clock before the Jury returned their verdict.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Serjeants Vaughan and Wild, and Mr. Stocks; Attorney, Mr. Harmer.
Counsel for defendant, Serjeant Bosanquet, Messrs. Tindal and Milder; Solicitor, Mr. Rogers.

November 1827 'Monday, Nov. 5. THE KING v. RAINE. This was an Indictment for perjury, alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon his examination as a witness in the Court of Common Pleas, in an action brought by William and Daniel Bailey against Colonel Beaumont.
Mr Campbell said the prosecutors (Messrs. Baileys) were very eminent ironmongers in Holborn. They were patentees of an article called a “rolled iron sash bar, to form hot-houses and green-houses,” which had been found extremely useful, a large number having been made by them. One of these was seen in the north by Mrs Beaumont, a lady of high rank, the wife of Colonel Beaumont, and then sitting on the Bench next his Lordship. Mrs Beaumont admired it, and wished to have one made like it, but on a much more extensive scale, and domical shape, and she stated her wish to Messrs Bailey. They said the expense would be very considerable, but being a very wealthy lady, she was resolved to gratify her inclination, which, indeed, she could not do in a more laudable manner than in encouraging the manufactures of the country. She accordingly, on the 17th of December, 1824, wrote to Messrs Bailey, desiring one of them to call upon her with plans, and Daniel Bailey, on the 20th of December, 1824, waited upon her accordingly, bringing with him a plan, and an estimate of the whole conservatory, which amounted to no less a sum than 5,725l. This expense was a mere trifle to Mrs Beaumont, and she ordered the work to proceed. In the spring of 1826 it was finished, but did not give entire satisfaction to Mrs Beaumont, who, the Learned Counsel believed, was misled, and afterwards regretted that she had been so. Messrs. Bailey sent in their bill, amounting, with extras and alterations, to £6,200., which Mrs Beaumont, by the advice of the defendant and of another servant, thought fit to dispute, upon the double ground that the charges were excessive, and that the work was not well done. Messrs Bailey consequently brought their action, which was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, at the Sittings after Easter Term. It was of the greatest importance to them to explain what the conservatory was, and show the Court that an estimate had been delivered, for the Counsel against them insisted that a conservatory to cost 6,000l. was a thing never before heard of, and that the demand was exorbitant. A notice had been served to produce the estimate; it was called for, but not produced, all knowledge of it was denied, and the plaintiffs were obliged to make out their case as well as they could without it. Mr William Raine, the present defendant, was one of the witnesses; the house-steward of Mrs Beaumont; he had advised her to contest the amount of the bill, and therefore he had a powerful interest in the event. He was called by the defendant, which gave a great advantage to the plaintiffs because they well knew that he had seen the estimate. Their counsel, Sergeant Vaughan, cross-examined him on this point; for some time he shuffled, and at last denied all knowledge of the estimate. The jury, in consequence, reduced the demand to 4,500l. The question before the jury was, whether this evidence was true or false: in the decision the Baileys had no interest, but the public had. In the course In the course of his cross-examination, the defendant was cautioned to speak the truth; and more than that, his own letter to the Baileys, mentioning the estimate, was put into his hands. The jury would hear Daniel Bailey, who delivered the estimate; he would tell them that he went Bretton-hall, here he saw Raine again and again and spoke to him of it. William Bailey would also be called, and would tell the Jury that saw Raine at his writing-desk, take a paper from it, and read almost the whole of the estimate. There were also other witnesses; but evidence under the hand of the defendant himself would be produced, for in January, 1825, Raine wrote a letter to Daniel Bailey, beginning thus— “Sir,—ln your estimate I observe 1,500l. for steam-boilers and pipes.” It is clear that when he wrote this letter he had the estimate. Whether the defendant had any malice against Messrs Bailey, or thought, though most erroneously, that he was gaining the favour of his mistress, or wished to get a victory over the cross-examining Counsel, he (Mr Campbell) did not know, but the Jury were to judge whether he had or had not stated what was untrue.
The record, with the postea endorsed in the action against Col. Beaumont, was produced, and the service of a notice upon Colonel Beaumont’s attorney to produce the estimate at the trial, was proved.
Frederick Bond Hughes examined by Mr. Broderip.—Witness was present at the trial before Lord Chief Justice Best, and took the notes In short hand. Witness saw William Raine sworn, and took the whole of his examination in chief, and cross-examination. (Witness produced the transcript which be made himself from the original notes, together with those notes.)
The evidence of the defendant was read by the officer of the Court, from the transcript, the material parts which were - “Question— Mrs Beaumont had an estimate?— Answer. I never saw one."Question —Do you mean to swear that you don’t know that she had an estimate? Yes, I do; I don’t know that she had an estimate, not a contract." "Question—Just look at that note (the letter Mr Campbell read in his opening)—is that your hand-writing?—Answer. Yes, it is.” “Question—Now, having turned about, will you venture to swear that you did not know there was an estimate?- Look as sharp you will, don’t you know there was an estimate ?—Answer. I do not know. Question —Did not Mrs Beaumont tell you so?—Answer- No.” “Question—Did you not learn from her that she had an estimate?—Answer. She only had a letter, she said, from Mr Bailey.”
Lord Tenterden said, it appeared to him that the whole of the cross examination turned upon a play of the word “estimate,” a confusion of the meaning that word. Raine mentioned a letter, but Sergeant Bosanquet (Colonel Beaumont's Counsel) stopped him immediately from giving verbal evidence of it, and Lord Chief Justice Best supported the objection. After a few words from Mr Campbell,
Lord Tenterden said, the Jury must look at the whole of the evidence, and not confine themselves to a particular answer. It was exceedingly probable, that by the word “estimate,’’ the defendant meant “contract.” Before a person was convicted of perjury, the Jury must be convinced that there was a wilful intention to misstate.
The defendant was acquitted. <br)Mr Campbell, said, he regretted Mrs Beaumont had not been examined, merely to state that the conservatory, which had been glazed, was exactly in the state the Messrs. Baileys left it, and was then standing a proud monument of the art of the country.
Lord TENTERDEN said, he had always made it a rule never to allow any thing to be said after a cause was decided.’
Durham Chronicle - Saturday 10 November 1827

On the death of Mrs Beaumont in 1832 the conservatory was sold by auction, dismantled, and re-erected elsewhere. It realised just 520 guineas, a fraction of its original cost, which various sources put between £8000 and £15000.

The buyer was a Mr Bentley, a brewer, who was interested only in the engines, and offered the conservatory to the Manchester Horticultural and Botanical Society for the Manchester Botanic Garden, but they found it too expensive to move. He eventually sold it to the Duke of Devonshire for £1450. Some of the ironwork may have been used in the Sheffield Botanical Garden

1832 Sale Notice: '.... the following Miscellany of Valuables, the Property of THE LATE MRS BEAUMONT, at BRETTON HALL, IN THE WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE, an imperfect sketch of which is all that can be accomplished by this annuncement, viz. .....
THE CELEBRATED AND SPLENDID MAGNA CHARTA WINDOW, 15 feet by 13, calculated for a baronial hall, exhibiting in distinct compartments the Armorial Bearings of the Barons assembled at Runnymede ; executed by the order and under the inspection of a late distinguished Virtuoso, by the first Continental artists ; also
THE FAR-FAMED DOME CONSERVATORY,
60 feet in diameter and 45 feet in height, known as "One of the Lions of the North." which was erected by the late respected " Mistress of Bretton Hall," at an expense of 15,000l. It is composed of iron and glass, and connected with it are an engine house, and steam-boiler and apparatus. It intended to submit the whole, without the slightest restriction, either in one or more lots. (Removal may be easily accomplished, water carriage being very contiguous.) ....

1832 'The Great Lion of the North," the famous Dome Conservatory at Bretton Hall, has proved a profitable spec to Mr. Bentley, the celebrated brewer, of Rotheram. His Grace of Devonshire having paid the original purchase of £450, and added a bank note another £1000!—(Correspondent)'

See Also

Loading...