William Raine

From Green's Rayne Pedigree.jpg

William Raine (born 1775, died 1833) [son of Robert Raine and Margaret Middleton] married Elizabeth Bell (died 1869 aged 86 [born about 1783])

From Raine Family Chronology file as at 11 October 2008.xlsx Row: 8115

Tuesday, 12 December 1775 Baptism in Staindrop, County Durham: William Raine, son of Robert Raine and Margaret Raine; Source: FS: 458646 Church of St Mary, Front Street, Staindrop, County Durham DL2 3NH 54.5808, -1.7988

From Raine Family Chronology file as at 11 October 2008.xlsx Row: 8132

Saturday, 21 March 1807 Marriage in Lanchester, County Durham: William Raine married Elizabeth Bell; Source: FS: M000651

From Freereg: Marriage of William Raine and Elisabeth Bell

• Groom: William Raine, from Winston, residence: Barford Barford Moor, Streatlam, County Durham DL2 3PZ 54.556391, -1.840891
• Bride: Elisabeth Bell, residence: Broom Shields
• Married: 21 March 1807 at Church of All Saints, Durham Road, Lanchester, County Durham DH7 0LJ 54.8211, -1.7406
• Notes: Married by Licence

From Freereg: Marriage of William Raine and Elizabeth Bell NOTE: not sure why there are two entries, possibly Banns

• Groom: William Raine
• Bride: Elizabeth Bell
• Married: 21 March 1807 at Chapel of ease, now Church of St Cuthbert, Satley, County Durham DL13 4HU 54.784, -1.8197

From Raine Family Chronology file as at 11 October 2008.xlsx Row: 10521

Saturday, 21 March 1807 Marriage in Satley, Lanchester, County Durham: William Raine of Barford, Winston, County Durham, farmer married Elizabeth Bell of Broomshields Hall, Satley, County Durham DL13 4HW 54.7756, -1.8219 in the parish of Lanchester by License by Joseph Thompson, curate. Witness Edward Raine, Barbara Bell, Anthony Bell; Source: Parish records of St Cuthbert's Church, Satley

From British Newspaper Archive: London Evening Standard Tuesday, 6 November 1827 Page 4 Court of King's Bench, Monday, 5 November 1827. The King Against 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 greenhouses," 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 of a 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 Friday, 17 December 1824, wrote to Messrs. Bailey, desiring one of them to call upon her with plans, and Mr. Daniel Bailey, on Monday, 20 December 1824, waited upon her accordingly, bringing with him a plan, and an estimate of the expense of the whole conservatory, which amounted to no less a sum than £5,725. 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 it 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 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 to show to the court that an estimate had been delivered, for the counsel against them insisted that a conservatory to cost £6,000 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: he was 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, Mr. 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 £4,500.

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 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 to Bretton-hall, where he saw Raine again and again, and spoke to him of it.

William Bailey would also he called, and would tell the jury that he saw Raine go to 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 £1,500 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 Colonel 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 he 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 of which were —

"Question: Mrs. Beaumont had an estimate? Answer: I never saw one —

Question: Do you mean to swear that you don't know she had an estimate? Answer: 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 it about, will you venture to swear that you did not know there was an estimate? Look as sharp as 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 of that word. Raine mentioned a letter, but Mr. 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.

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.

From British Newspaper Archive: Newcastle Courant Saturday, 12 April 1828 Page 2 Yorkshire Assizes, Thursday, 3 April 1828. Defamation. — Horsington versus Beaumont and wife

Mr Pattison opened the pleadings, which stated that the wife of the defendant had spoken certain defamatory words of and respecting the plaintiff, highly injurious to his reputation and reflecting thereon, and also charging him with frauds in money transactions....

The defendants, probably they all knew, were Colonel and Mrs Beaumont, who possessed very large estates in Yorkshire. The plaintiff had resided in the West Riding of that county for more than sixteen years, and had been confidentially employed by many persons of rank and property, as their agent and surveyor. In that capacity he had been employed by Sir George Shee, and by a nobleman of large estate and political importance (Lord Buckinghamshire) from whose knowledge of him he had been recommended to the defendants, Colonel and Mrs Beaumont, and, upon such high recommendation, he entered the defendants' service as land-agent and steward in 1812, and continued until November 1827 [in the last year]...

From what Mrs Beaumont said, he dismissed Mr Horsington on Thursday, 13 November 1828, but allowed him to remain till Monday, 5 January 1829, when his last rents were received by him....

Mr William Raine, house steward to the defendants, said that Mrs Beaumont had complained to him of Mr Horsington's conduct, to the girl [daughter of a tenant], and had called him a profligate and dishonest agent....

The jury retired for about twenty minutes, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, £1,700.

From The Langstaffs of Teesdale and Weardale by George Blundell Longstaff Published 1923 Page 472

William Rayne, married Elizabeth Bell. The sons all died young.

From Raine Family Chronology file as at 11 October 2008.xlsx Row: 13036

Saturday, 12 January 1833 Death in Staindrop, County Durham: William Raine, son of Robert Raine, aged 57; Source: Monumental Inscriptions: St Mary The Virgin, Staindrop

From findagrave: William Raine (about 1775 - 1835)

• Name: William Raine
• Born: about 1775
• Died: Saturday, 12 January 1833
• Buried: [St Mary's Churchyard, Front Street, Staindrop, County Durham DL2 3NH 54.5806617, -1.7986874], England
• Inscription:
  • Erected to the memory of Robert Raine, late of Barford, who died Friday, 7 October 1825, aged 73 years.
  • Also of William Raine, eldest son of the above, who died Saturday, 12 January 1833, age 57 years. He was a most affectionate husband, a kind father, and a sincere friend.
  • And of Margaret Raine, widow of the above named Robert Raine, and mother of the aforesaid William Raine, who died Wednesday, 2 November 1842 in the 88th year of her age.
  • Likewise of John Langstaff, late of Stainton, who died Thursday, 6 August 1846, aged 69 years.
  • Also Sarah Langstaff, wife of John Langstaff, and daughter of the above Robert Raine and Margaret Raine, Thursday, 25 March 1852, aged 68 years.

From British Newspaper Archive: Durham Chronicle Friday, 5 December 1845 Page 3 Deaths

Deaths: At Staindrop, Sunday, 23 November 1845 [ult.], Miss Raine, eldest surviving daughter of the late Mr William Raine, principal agent to T. W. Beaumont, Esq., of Bretton Hall, Yorkshire, and a native of Barford, near Staindrop, in this county.

From Wikipedia: Thomas Wentworth Beaumont

Thomas Wentworth Beaumont (Monday, 5 November 1792 – Wednesday, 20 December 1848) of Bretton Hall, West Bretton, West Yorkshire WF4 4LG 53.6107, -1.5729, Wakefield in Yorkshire, and of Bywell Hall in Northumberland, was a British politician and soldier. In 1831, at the time he inherited his mother's estate, he was the richest commoner in England.

Origins

Thomas Wentworth Beaumont was born on Monday, 5 November 1792 in Old Burlington Street in Mayfair, London, the eldest son of Thomas Richard Beaumont by his wife Diana Wentworth, daughter of Sir Thomas Wentworth, 5th Baronet. He was educated at Eton College and St John's College, Cambridge, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1813.

Career

He served as lieutenant-colonel of the Northumberland Militia, but resigned in 1824. In 1826, he fought a duel with John Lambton later 1st Earl of Durham. He was president of the Literary Association of the Friends of Poland and a member of the Royal Yacht Squadron.

In 1816 Beaumont stood as Member of Parliament (MP) for Northumberland, the same constituency his father had represented before. He lost this seat in 1826, however was successful for Stafford in a by-election in 1826. After the general election of 1830 Beaumont was returned again for Northumberland, until in 1832, the constituency was split into a north and south division. Beaumont was elected for the latter, and sat then for South Northumberland until his retirement from politic in 1837. Initially a Tory, he was considered a Liberal from 1820.

Image from Bretton Hall, West Bretton, West Yorkshire