User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Joseph Beecham

Well, having looked it again, it really doesn't seem too bad. There don't seem to be many loose ends, unsolved mysteries etc. Maybe try to tidy up all the untidy refs, and finally sort out the order of the attempted purchase of the CG estate, with perhaps a few more financial details. That's almost it.

For those of a similar name, see Joseph Beacham (disambiguation).

Beecham's Clock Tower, part of the factory and offices built in 1877 in St Helens, Merseyside

"Walton Bridges" by J.W.M. Turner, bought 1909–1910 by Joseph Beecham.

Sir Joseph Beecham, 1st Baronet (8 June 1848 – 23 October 1916), was a British businessman, patron of opera, and fine art collector. As a young man he gradually assumed responsibility for his father's laxative business, Beecham's Pills, and greatly improved its profitability over some forty years. With intensive and original advertising he made the firm's products known all over the world. His younger son Henry Beecham joined the firm in 1906.

From around 1910 he acquired the leases of various London theatres to further the career of his son Thomas Beecham in conducting opera and ballet, for example the Ballets Russes in 1911. This patronage cost hundreds of thousands of pounds (many millions in the 21st century), which he attempted to recoup in various business ventures. One of these was to act as the middle man for the purchase of the Covent Garden Estate, London, (including the Royal Opera House) for £2 million from the 11th Duke of Bedford in June 1914.

However, severe monetary controls introduced by the British government a month later on the outbreak of World War I meant that the capital transfer to complete the sale couldn't legally be made, and the deal fell through. Worries about having to meet the enormous debt to the Duke of Bedford (around £1.25m when he died) contributed to his death aged 68 in 1916 before the purchase could be completed.

Joseph Beecham's financial affairs were so complex that after his death his executors applied to the Court of Chancery for relief. His sons, Thomas and Henry, were ordered by the court in 1917 to form a private company to complete the purchase of the Covent Garden estate, which was only finalised in 1922. Henry Beecham was convicted of manslaughter in early in 1921, having killed a young boy in a road traffic incident. He left the business and the country after serving a year in prison. In addition, Thomas Beecham was heavily in debt on his own account in connection with his opera productions, and was the subject of a Receiving Order (the equivalent today of being declared bankrupt) from 1919; his own personal debts were only discharged in 1923.

Sir Thomas Beecham only wanted to continue making music ("I have been faithful to thee, Cynara, after my fashion"), and he sold the entire business and estate to a new company with financial backing from Phillip Hill, one of the names in Hill Samuel. From 1924 Hill oversaw the transition of the original single-product Beecham's Pills company into a modern international pharmaceutical business.

Early life

He was the eldest son of Jane Evans and Thomas Beecham, a former shepherd who founded a manufacturing company to make Beecham's pills. He was born in St. Helens, Liverpool, in a house adjacent to his father's first factory, which made the company's main product.

Career

Beecham's Pills

In 1866, aged around 18, Beecham joined his father's business and infused into it a highly enterprising spirit. In 1876 he was mentioned in the local directories as 'assistant chemist' at the works.

In 1886 work began on a new main factory and office buildings in Westfield Street, St. Helens at an initial cost of £30,000. The works were opened towards the end of 1887. The St. Helens premises was one of the first factories in the UK to be powered and lit by electricity. Beecham was the chairman of the St. Helens Electricity Committee, which provided a cheaper electricity supply than other similar urban areas.

• Add info from The Times obit here, re new factory.

Construction of the new factory involved knocking down the house where Beecham was born, and the same year he purchased the 'Ewanville' mansion and estate in Blacklow Brow, Huyton. This was one of the first houses in Lancashire to be lit by electricity and also had central heating installed. It was later replaced by modern housing.

Beecham was a keen cyclist, and the works Secretary, the Anglo-American Charles Rowed was a cycling companion. Rowed became works manager in around 1887.

Advertising was a primary way of increasing sales: the budget was £22,000 in 1884, growing to £95,000 in 1889. The workforce increased from 19 to 88 during the same period. In 1890 the total daily output was 9,000,000 pills per day.

He visited the United States in 1887 after that country and Britain became signatories to the 1883 Paris Convention which provided protection for trade marks, followed by setting up factories and agencies in several other countries. That year he registered the firm's trademark in the US, and witnessed a number of prosecutions for trademark infringement. He and his father Thomas Sr. regularly visited the country thereafter. In 1888 Beecham appointed B. F. Allen and Co. of 365-367 Canal Street, Manhattan, as sole agent for Beecham's Pills in the US. Allen was already agent for Pears Soap. The same year, 1888, Beecham's sent out 7,000 letters promoting its pills in the US and Canada, and distributed photographs of US presidential candidates Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland with an advertisement for the pills on the back. The presidential nominees for the Equal Rights Party were Mrs. Belva Ann Lockwood of Washington DC, and Albert H. Love of Pennsylvania. Love declined the honour, and Charles Stuart Welles was substituted as nominee. Joseph Beecham's son Thomas would later marry Utica, Welles's daughter.

Beecham was given a half share in the business in 1889, and took over completely from his father in 1895. In 1890 Beecham made an arrangement with B. F. Allen to manufacture the pills in Brooklyn in order to circumvent a US tariff equivalent to 50% of the sale price of the pills. The Americans preferred sugar-coated pills.

On other transatlantic trips he took his eldest son Thomas on the SS Campania in 1893, his oldest daughter Edith in 1907 on the RMS Lusitania, and his other son Henry in 1913 on the RMS Mauretania. Beecham may have made as many as 30 transatlantic return trips (60 crossings) in total.

The firm used a variety of ingenious and sometimes humorous advertising and marketing techniques. These ranged from a single line at the foot of a news column in an education journal in the USA ("Liver complaints cured by Beecham's Pills"), to Beecham's Help to Scholars, packed full of useful information for schoolchildren; and the 120 titles of Beecham's Photo-Folios, photographic views of Great Britain, price one penny (less than 0.5p); Further afield, the French writer André Chevrillon arriving in Darjeeling in the Himalayas in November 1890 was greeted on the road from the station with advertising posters proclaiming Pears soap, Colman's mustard and Beecham's pills. The advertising posters for Beecham’s Pills and Colman’s Mustard were designed by John Hassall. Beecham was later a director of A. and F. Pears Ltd., joining the board in 1909.

• Add stuff here from Times obit (see below), re marketing achievements, teacher asking question etc.
• Also add stuff from Random info & Character by Thos. re how much he controlled the business, interesting himself in every aspect of its working

Infidelity

"Like his father, Joseph was a lusty man and felt that neither his wife nor his children understood him. He began to seek his private pleasures elsewhere." In February 1899 Joseph had his wife certified as being of unsound mind (they had been married in 1873), and in March he had her detained against her will in a lunatic asylum (mental hospital) in Nottingham. Thomas Beecham briefly refers to his his mother's condition in his autobiography as "...a nervous malady, which first manifested itself when I was between ten and eleven, and which obliged her as time went on to relinquish more and more the care of her house and go southward to some place like Eastbourne or Bournemouth where she could be looked after until well again." Two of the Beecham children, Emily and Thomas, were very much against this development when they learned about it, and made their antagonism towards their father very plain.

Beecham's oldest daughter Emily went to live at the London residence of Dr. Charles Stuart Welles, the former superintendent of the NY Polyclinic Hospital, and former US presidential nominee for the National Equal Rights Party. Beecham had been treated by Welles during a trip to the US. In 1900 Welles, who had moved to London some years earlier, was employed as First Secretary of the American Embassy. Welles' wife was Ella Celeste née Miles, whose brother-in-law (by her sister's marriage) was Sir Francis Cook. It was Cook who strongly supported Emily and Thomas, and his solicitors recommended a legal separation. Cook had also discovered that Joseph Beecham had been keeping a mistress in a house in Harlesden, N. London, a 'Mrs. Bennett' whose real name was Helen McKey Taylor. She had been a governess in St Helens, had been 'on terms of intimacy' with Beecham for the past twelve years, and was to remain his friend and confidante for the rest of his life. He left her nothing in his will.

Joseph Beecham was a Justice of the Peace for Lancashire; and Mayor of St. Helens between 1889 and 1899. To mark his re-inauguration in December 1899, he organised and paid for a concert with Hans Richter conducting the Hallé Orchestra. Richter cancelled at the last moment, and Beecham's son Thomas conducted instead. Nevertheless, when Joseph Beecham realised that Thomas was not going to back down in his support of Josephine he threw his son out of the house, and they became estranged for nine years.

In 1901 Thomas and his oldest sister Emily helped to secure their mother's release and forced Joseph to pay her an annual alimony of £4,500. (or £2,500 according to Lucas p. 19) Thomas Beecham also went to live at the Welles' house in London, where he proposed to their daughter Utica. Joseph disinherited Emily completely. Beecham fils was to exhibit the same lack of uxorious attachment in later life.

Henry Beecham, his younger son, joined Beecham's Pills as manager in 1906 - his performance has been described as "adequate but lack-lustre". He was rather overshadowed by Henry Rowed, who had risen since c1887 to be the works' general director.

In 1908 alone Joseph Beecham's profit from the business was £98,200 (£5.9 million in 2008). He had inherited £40,000 (£2.4 million in 2008) from his father Thomas who died in 1907, who left a total of £86,680 in his will.

Gradually losing interest in the pill-making business (he had joined the firm in 1866, over 40 years before), Joseph Beecham withdrew a large amount of money from his firm, bought 9 Arkwright Road, Hampstead, London in 1909 and filled it with quality artworks by Constable, Turner, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Cox and DeWint, among others. The house in Hampstead, named Hill Brow (or West Brow), cost £40,000. There was a small concert hall equipped with a splendid organ.

Musical impresario

The estrangement with his son Thomas came to an end in 1909, and he began to support his son's burgeoning musical career.

The reconciliation between the Beechams took place after a performance of Dame Ethel Smyth's opera The Wreckers at His Majesty's Theatre in 1909. Joseph Beecham had taken to attending his son's concerts incognito, slipping out before the end. According to Smyth, at a rehearsal for The Wreckers at His Majesty's Theatre, "Beecham whispered to me, "Look... the left hand of the two men hiding behind the pillars at the back of the stalls is my father!" Thomas Beecham conducted the first complete English performance of The Wreckers on 22 June 1909. Smyth, with her extensive list of high society contacts including Empress Eugénie and even Buckingham Palace, suggested that the King should attend a gala performance of The Wreckers. Joseph duly went along to His Majesty's Theatre, and was presented to King Edward at the end. He was hugely impressed and soon met with Thomas in a lawyer's office where any animosity remaining after some ten years' estrangement melted away. He and Tommy spent the rest of the day together, playing organ and piano duets together.

The day before the gala performance, Joseph Beecham had met Thomas J. Barrett of Pears Soap at Christie's auction rooms, and told Barrett that he was willing to devote £200,000 to furthering the cause of national opera. He also purchased a landscape by George Vincent for 1060 gns. He sent a pony and trap as a present to Thomas's house at Mursley Hall, Buckinghamshire.

He leased various theatres in London to further Thomas's conducting career, including the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, the Drury Lane theatre and the smaller Aldwych Theatre. These were all part of the Covent Garden estate, whose ultimate landowner was the Duke of Bedford until it was finally sold in 1918 to a Beecham-controlled private company.

Beecham was again mayor of St. Helens from 1910 to 1912. In 1911 he considerably extended the New York factory, installing the latest technically advanced machinery for making pills. This was a great advance over the St Helens factory, where child labour (legal at the time) was cheap and plentiful. The US Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906 had outlawed manufacturers from making false claims for their products, but despite this setback, Beecham's profits more than doubled by 1913.

Joseph Beecham was knighted in late 1911, with effect from 1 January 1912, "presumably by purchase", and was a member of the Walpole Society in 1912–1913. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts in 1913.

Anglo-Bulgarian banking scheme

Unfortunately, although his son Thomas Beecham achieved great artistic and critical acclaim as a conductor, he was a helpless spendthrift with little head for money management: a considerable portion of Joseph Beecham's fortune disappeared in a few a short years. In an attempt to improve his fading finances, he became associated with some shady and unscrupulous financiers. One of these was James White, a notorious high-class swindler and gambler. Beecham went into partnership with White in the Ancona Motor Co., importing American motor cars including Oakland, Oldsmobile, GMC, Kelly Springfield and Wallis agricultural tractors.

In the autumn of 1913, along with Marmaduke Furness, 1st Viscount Furness, Beecham was involved in an attempt to set up an Anglo-Bulgarian banking scheme. Its purpose was to provide general banking services, to act as agents in Bulgaria for British companies and to expand commercial interests with Bulgaria. The prospective deal was promoted by Leonce Delphin, one of Beecham's sons-in-law, and Otto Fulton.

The whole unlikely enterprise came to naught because of Foreign Office suspicions about Otto Fulton.

"The Foreign Office distinguished between official and unofficial support. Official support was given, for example, to foreign bondholders in case there was any trouble with guaranteed or semi-guaranteed loans to foreign governments".

Moral support of the unofficial type was often given to British commercial interests. However, negative British perceptions of stereotypes "affected decisions so that schemes by Jewish businessmen or foreign-owned banks or companies were unlikely to receive either concrete or moral support from British officials."

Not even unofficial 'moral support' from the FO was likely to be forthcoming. Inquiries by the British Consul in Belgrade in September 1912 revealed that Fulton had been overheard speaking fluent Austrian German, seemed to be Hebraic and spoke English with a "slight foreign accent." A cable from the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey stated that he was "Twice bankrupt. No good."

Parliamentary Committee on Proprietary Remedies

Opposition to the vague and fraudulent claims made by the makers of patent medicines started to grow in the 20th century. In the United States concern about unsanitary methods of food preparation, especially the meat packing industry, led to the US Congress passing the Pure Food and Drugs Act in 1906. This also removed the protection which proprietary medicines had benefited from since the US and Britain had signed the 1887 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. This event had been the impetus for Beecham to begin the US operation in the first place.

Add stuff about Resale price maintenance!

• Yamey, B. S. (September 1952). "The Origins of Resale Price Maintenance: A Study of Three Branches of Retail Trade". The Economic Journal. 62 (247). doi:10.2307/2226898. JSTOR 2226898.

P.A.T.A.
p. 533, 537-8, 543

A Parliamentary Select Committee on Proprietary Remedies was set up: Beecham, who had been running the pill-making business since 1895 with Charles Rowed as his general manager, gave evidence to the Committee on January 13, 1913. [See also Norman supra note 19, questions 8964-9514.] He was fairly roughly handled by the committee, who viewed him as a fraudulent rogue.

According to Beecham's evidence to the Committee, by 1913 the firm was making 370 million pills a year weighing 50 tons, with an annual turnover of £360,000 and an annual advertising budget of $100,000. The workforce of around 100 consisted mostly of low-paid boys; Business was done on a cash-only basis, which kept office staff to a minimum, and since the raw materials for the pills (aloes, powdered ginger and chemists' soap) only cost £34,000, the net profits in 1913 amounted to £110,000.

The general conclusions of the Select Committee were:

"After careful consideration of the evidence laid before them, your Committee find:

1. That there is a large and increasing sale in this country of patent and proprietary remedies and appliances and of medicated wines.
2. That these remedies are of a widely differing characters, comprising (a) genuine scientific preparations; (b) unobjectionable remedies for simple ailments; and (c) many secret remedies making grossly exaggerated claims of efficacy…
3. That this last-mentioned class (c) of remedies contains none which spring from therapeutical or medical knowledge, but that they are put upon the market by ignorant persons, and in many cases by cunning swindlers who exploit for their own profit the apparently invincible credulity of the public.
4. That this constitutes a grave and widespread public evil…"

Criticism

For Sinclair Lewis the Beechams and their enterprises "embodied the conflation of capital gained through advertising, the enthusiasms of staid bourgeois society in London, and regressive culture. As such, Thomas Beecham no doubt represented to the vorticists the darkest possibilities of the amalgamation of advertising and art." Make sfn

The Vorticist publication Blast took aim at public figures like Thomas Beecham, " '" The "Opera" in this parenthesis was the Grand Season of Russian Opera and English Opera (and the Russian Ballet) brought to London's Drury Lane Theatre in 1914 by Sir Joseph Beecham, the founder of Beecham's Pills. Here the vorticists condemn the way in which English commercial interests subvert rather than support English art interests; to them, the tremendous attention of the public and press to the arrival of the Russian Opera and the Russian Ballet must have reeked of the same cultural imperialism that the Italian futurists had threatened."

• Reynolds, Paige (Summer 2000). "'Chaos Invading Concept': Blast as a Native Theory of Promotional Culture". Twentieth Century Literature. 46 (2). Duke University Press. doi:10.2307/441959. JSTOR 441959.

The cost of patronage of the arts

Although Beecham was reportedly worth about $130,000,000 (£26m),- making him the third richest man in England, he needed to recoup the massive losses his son Thomas had incurred while staging opera and ballet from 1910 - eg 1912 Russian Ballet season, which Joseph Beecham had heavily backed and promoted. Of the 34 operas that Beecham staged at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden in 1910, only four had made money.

Whatever the papers may have printed, Beecham never 'owned' the Aldwych Theatre, with Sir Thomas as the lessee. See also a review of the 'farcical comedy', "Looking For Trouble": The Times, Tuesday, 14 May 1912. He may well have been the leaseholder of the building: which is not the same as owning the freehold, which always belonged to the Duke of Bedford, even after the sale of the Covent Garden Estate in 1918. See far below.

Beecham was made a baronet, of Ewanville in the Parish of Huyton in the County Palatine of Lancaster, in 1914. This was ostensibly for his services to the arts, but he paid a total of £10,000 (£165,000 in 2008) to the following individuals: £4,000 to Lady Cunard; £5,500 to Edward Horner, brother of H. H. Asquith's daughter-in-law Katherine Asquith; and £500 to Lady Diana Manners who quietly told her future husband Duff Cooper, who recorded it in his diary.

On the same day as the announcement of his baronetcy, Beecham let it be known that he had also acquired the Covent Garden Estate from the Duke of Bedford for £2,000,000. He wasn't intending to manage it himself permanently, but was acting as a middle man for a property syndicate headed by Alexander Ormrod, a stockbroker of the Manchester firm of Ormrod & Co.

The Covent Garden estate

Background

The Dukes of Bedford had owned the Covent Garden estate since the execution and attainder of the 1st Duke of Somerset in 1549 during the reign of Henry VIII.

Agriculture had suffered from the general depression since the Panic of 1873, the longest and most severe until the "Great Depression" triggered by the 1923 Wall Street Crash. The Duke of Bedford was a huge agricultural landowner: Thorney estate, Woburn, Bedfordshire, Bucks, etc.- but low land prices meant there were no buyers, and landowners thus couldn't easily diversify into company securities. Although the London estates were profitable enough, the main source of his income was from his vast agricultural holdings which were becoming considerably less profitable.

The following sentence is vaguely correct, but the actual timeline and reasons need sorting out from Shepherd, with lots of info about Bedford and his sell-off of most of his estates.

The 11th Duke of Bedford seems to have decided to sell the Bloomsbury Estate in 1910, when Herbert Asquith's Liberal government raised land duties on urban estates. This was part of Lloyd George's Land Campaign initiative, to tax the freeholders rather than the lessees. According to Roland Quinault,

"Lloyd George’s urban land reform campaign had a limited impact in London, but it prompted one great London landlord to reduce his holdings. In 1913, the eleventh Duke of Bedford sold his Covent Garden estate for over two million pounds, much of his properties in Bloomsbury for £300,000 and the freehold of the Hotel Russell for £45,000. His agent from 1898, the "outstandingly able" Rowland Prothero, later stated that Covent Garden was sold because "it was detached and from its nature might be a dangerous property for an individual to hold." The duke had been criticized for making large profits from Covent Garden, which had a reputation for dirt because of the market and for immorality because of the theatres and other places of entertainment. The duke’s sell-off was not, however, imitated by other large London landowners before the war."

Prothero (later Lord Ernle) also said:: "Public opinion was setting strongly against the accumulation of large landed properties in the hands of individuals. The ownership of land had lost its political importance; financial legislation had already made its tenure more unprofitable; further legislation in similar directions was threatened."

Extent of the estate

The Covent Garden Estate in 1914 consisted of around 18 acres (7.3 ha) in the City of Westminster, including the well-known fruit and vegetable market itself; several theatres, including the Royal Opera House and its associated storage and rehearsal rooms, the Aldwych Theatre, the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the Strand Theatre; the National Sporting Club, the Waldorf Hotel and numerous restaurants and pubs; Bedford Chambers; the Tavistock Hotel; and Hummum's Hotel in the Little Piazza on Russell St.; numerous small shops and businesses in Floral Street, James Street & Russell Street near the market; Bow Street police station and police court; and the Corpus Christi Roman Catholic Church in Maiden Lane.

Overview of the purchase

According to Thomas Beecham, it was Joseph Beecham's shady partner "Jimmy" White who had persuaded him to buy Covent Garden in the first place; the intention was to float a public company, in co-operation with a well-known firm of brokers based in northern England, to deal with the estate as a commercial proposition. Beecham Sr. was to receive back the considerable sum he had paid as deposit money, plus a monetary bonus for financing the deal in the first place.

Joseph Beecham signed the contract to buy the Covent Garden Estate from the Duke of Bedford on 6 July 1914, and on 12 July he sold on the estate to Alexander Ormrod as agreed for a profit of £50,000. But before the contract could be completed World War I broke out, and the government suspended major capital transfers. Ormrod was legally prevented from transferring his syndicate's capital to Beecham, who was legally obliged to pay £2 million to the Duke of Bedford.

Although the Duke of Bedford was the owner of the estate, the negations were carried out by his agent since 1898, the "outstandingly able" Rowland Prothero.

Sequence of events

In late 1913 the property magnate Harry Mallaby-Deeley, MP for Harrow, made an offer to the financier Herbrand Russell, 11th Duke of Bedford, to purchase for £2 million (about £123 million in 2019) the freehold of the Covent Garden Estate. On 24 November 1913 Mallaby-Deely signed an outline agreement (or option) with the Duke to purchase the estate, with 2/3 of the finance being provided by the Duke at 4.5% per annum for up to 12 years. By the following summer Mallaby-Deely had received several offers on his option, including one from Beecham which had been rejected. Beecham then made a more substantial offer, acting with James White, and backed by a Manchester stockbroker, Alexander Lawson Ormrod (a sort of sleeping partner). On completion with the Duke, Beecham was going to sell the estate straight on to Ormrod, for a further profit for Beecham of £50,000. Ormrod and his backers were to float a public company to manage the estate commercially.

Thus in June 1914 Beecham offered Mallaby-Deeley £250,000 (c. £15m in 2015) to purchase the option to buy the estate. The association of both White and Ormrod with Beecham was made clear at the time of the deal with Mallaby-Deely.

Very long article in The Times about the sale of the CG estate, listing all the 26 streets with properties included in the sale, and plenty of info about the Duke and Mallaby-Deeley. Oi, make proper refs, fool!

Beecham's offer was accepted by Mallaby-Deely in June 1914. and Beecham paid him £250,000 for the option to purchase. On 6 July Beecham then signed an agreement with the Duke of Bedford to purchase the whole estate, with a deposit of £200,000, 10% of the purchase price. "Under the terms of his agreement of 6 July 1914 with the Duke of Bedford, Sir Joseph Beecham contracted to buy the estate and market for £2,000,000. He paid a deposit of £200,000 and covenanted to pay the balance on 11 November."

"...it will, of course, rank as one of the largest ever [deals] carried out in real estate in London."

Having irrevocably committed himself to purchase the estate from the Duke on 6 July, Beecham then sold the entire Covent Garden estate to his partner Ormrod on 12 July 1914 (Beecham Sells Estate, NYT, 13 July 1914), for a profit of £50,000.

When World War 1 boringly broke out within a month, the Treasury suspended the Gold Standard, issuing paper Treasury Banknotes instead, and stopped any further transfers of capital unconnected with the war. "...and new official restrictions on the use of capital prevented the completion of the contract." "Capital transfers were quickly restricted, however, and Ormrod was unable to complete his purchase, while Joseph could not withdraw from his [own]".

Ormrod thus found himself legally forbidden to honour the deal to purchase the estate from Beecham, who was landed with not only an aging opera house (temporarily full of furniture from the hotels and workplaces which the government had requisitioned as offices); but also an entire prime city-centre property estate which he had no particular desire to own.

After the deal with Ormrod fell through, Beecham made a new deal with the vendor (ie Duke of Bedford) which involved Beecham making another large cash payment, bringing the total amount he had advanced to the Duke towards the purchase to well over half a million pounds. Actually it must have amounted to £750,000, since the remaining mortgage was 1.25 million. This was in addition to the £250,000 he paid Mallaby-Deely, so he had already spent £1m and still needed to raise a further £1.25m.

To cover the outstanding debt, James White arranged a new source of financial backing, and also brokered an agreement between Beecham and the Duke of Bedford that everything else would stand in abeyance until the war was over.

Final years and death

At the beginning of the war Beecham was on a committee to help arriving Belgian refugees in St. Helens, set up by the municipality and the Roman Catholic community.

During the First World War, the 1st Infantry Division (Lord Methuen's division) became known as "Beecham's Pills" because they relieved so many outposts and besieged garrisons.

"The Price of a Portrait". The Times. Tuesday, 16 May 1916, p. 5.

"In the Bloomsbury County Court yesterday, before Judge Bray, Mr. Frank C. King, an artist, of Regent street, sued Sir Joseph Beecham, of St. Helens, to recover £72 l0s., balance alleged to be due for the painting of a portrait of his wife. According to the plaintiff, the defendant's daughter-in-law, the wife of Sir Thomas Beecham, instructed him to paint the wife of Sir Joseph Beecham, and the price was to be 160 guineas. It was also arranged that the plaintiff should paint a picture of the wife of Sir Thomas Beecham and her two children. A cheque for £85 had been paid by Sir Joseph. The defendant's contention was that the price of his wife's portrait was £50 and the cheque for £85 was payment for that and a payment on account for the second painting. He was told the price of the two pictures was to be £150, but he gave no instructions and was not liable. At the instance of the Judge, the parties consulted and a settlement was arrived at which was not disclosed."

Beecham was visited more frequently in London by his son Thomas, while a manageable scheme was being sought after to place the delayed contract on a firm basis. Beecham's ordeal had visibly aged him. Worries about the gigantic sum of £1.25m he was going to have pay (perhaps £1 billion in 2021??) for the Covent Garden estate contributed to Sir Joseph Beecham's demise. He died at his home in Hampstead on 23 October 1916 aged 68, and was succeeded in the baronetcy by his eldest son, Sir Thomas, who had been knighted in his own right earlier in the 1916 New Year Honours for his services to music as an orchestral conductor.

The Times - Death of Sir Joseph Beecham - 24 October 1916, p. 11

DEATH OF SIR JOSEPH,BEECHAM. SERVICES TO OPERA.

Sir Joseph Beecham was found dead in bed at his residence at Hampstead yesterday morning. The son of Thomas Beecham, who founded the great pill-making business at St. Helens, Lancashire, who was born in 1848, and entered the business at an early age. He took no active part in public affairs until 1899, when, to the surprise of the people of St. Helens, he accepted for the first time the office of Mayor (he held It twice subsequently), in which he showed great liberality. His son Thomas had meanwhile returned from tho United States with a very keen interest in music, and Joseph Beecham encouraged during his mayoralty all kinds of musical entertainments, at which his son acted as conductor. He afterwards financed various schemes for popularizing opera in England, some of his productions being at the Aldwych Theatre of which he became the proprietor. [NB probably he owned the lease, not the freehold.]

He was knighted in 1912 and was created a baronet in June, 1914. In 1913 he had a five weeks season of Russian opera and ballet at Drury Lane, which at once "caught on" and became most fashionable. Next year he instituted, with complete success, the still more ambitious project of a season of grand opera at Drury Lane, running concurrently with the Covent Garden season, introducing many new works. The season, which began on May 20, lasted till July 25 - a bare week before the outbreak of war, Sir Joseph being presented with a gilded laurel wreath on the stage at the concluding performance. He was made by the Tsar a Knight of the Order of St. Stanislaus for his services to Russian opera and ballet.

It was in 1914 too that he purchased, in conjunction with others, the Covent Garden estate from the Duke of Bedford, the price being, it was stated, between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. He was also a keen art collector, and was one of the chief buyers at the Barratt sale at Christie's last May, where he bought a Constable, "Hampstead Heath," for 500 guineas, two Morlands (one for 500 guineas), and a number of other pictures.

Sir Joseph married, in 1873, Josephine, daughter of Mr. William Burnett, of London, by whom he had two sons and five daughters. His elder son, Sir Thomas Beecham, who succeeds to the title, was born in 1879, and educated at Rossall and Wadham College, Oxford. He married, in 1903, a daughter of Dr. C. S. Welles, of Ne.w York, and has two sons. Be was knighted in the last New Year Honours.

EARLY DAYS OF THE BUSINESS. A corespondent who resided in St, Helens when the pill business was in its infancy well remembers seeing its founder offering his wares for sale in the market-place of that town. It was while he frequented the market-place that a woman one day interrupted his speech by shouting out that his pills were "Worth a guinea a box", and he at once replied that ho would put that phrase on every box he made in future. At that time Beecham lived in Westfield-street, and he erected a shed in the yard behind his house where the manufacture of the pills took place. As the demand for the article increased, he had the house pulled down and a factory was built on the site, to be succeeded later on by the present palatial buildings. The story is still told in the town of an incident that occurred in a school. An inspector, examining a class, asked the pupils what St. Helens was noted for. "Please, sir," said one aspiring boy, "for Beecham's pills." When the story reached the ears of the great pill-maker he made the boy a present of a watch. The extent of the advertising resorted to by both the founder and the late Sir Joseph Beecham is well known. Nearly every big firm that advertises largely employs an agent, but the Beechamss have always kept this part of their business, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, in their own hands. Their foreign advertising is, however, entrusted to a London firm. It has been computed that a sum of about £80,000 is spent in this way every year, £60,000 of it in this country alone.

Writing off debts, 1917–1923

Background

Sir Joseph Beecham died in 1916, and was succeeded in the baronetcy by his son Sir Thomas Beecham, to whom fell the task of settling the purchase of the Covent Garden Estate. Sir Joseph had made over the entire American pills business to Harry in ?1910? as compensation for his huge operatic generosity towards Thomas. The Court of Chancery in 1917 ruled that Charles Rowed & Henry Beecham should carry on running the St. Helens factory.<C&G 1921>

Simply put, Joseph Beecham kept his cash profits in a deposit account with a particular bank. When he made losses (including his operatic/balletic ventures), he had simply borrowed more and more money on an overdraft from a different bank. Whether the two accounts should be treated as business benefits?? in favour of the beneficiaries of Sir Joseph Beecham's will (ie Thomas and Henry) was finally decided upon in WHEN, fool?."

He may have been rich on paper, but he was cash-poor. Even if he hadn't been saddled with Covent Garden, he would still have been in debt to the tune of nearly 1 million pounds. The opera and ballet seasons between 1910 and 1914 probably cost him as much as £300,000. NB he had said just before the reconciliation with Tommy that he was willing to spend £200,000 in the furtherance of opera. (A brief notice in The Musical Times states £300,000).

A fair portion of Thomas Beecham's inheritance was spent in paying back this considerable and unforeseen debt. NB See Corley, DNB, who says his wealth at death was £1,479,447. If my sums/estimates are correct, this was made up of the approx. £1,000,000 (realised by Covent Garden Estates by Tommy B, and his advisor (WHO? see Shepherd) of Jos. Beecham's personal debt, plus the v. approx value of the "residuary estate" bought by Tommy & Henry in 1917 for £575,000 (i fink, probably not in fact).

Beecham's wealth at death was £1,479,447.(Corley, DNB) But the estate's total indebtedness was £2,131,571, of which £39,763 was unsecured, including the debt of £1.25m for the Covent Garden mortgage. The assets of Joseph Beecham's estate (mostly property) were valued at sufficient to provide a surplus of £78,724.(C&G 1921 as above/below)

The affairs of the rest of of Sir Joseph's estate were so complex that the executors were forced to hand the whole business to the Court of Chancery in London.

Court of Chancery

And here darkness tends to descend on the whole affair. It did not help that Sir Thos. Beecham continued to conduct opera and to rack up personal debts (eg Beecham Opera Company), although he was required to discharge his father's debts to the Duke of Bedford. In 1921 his case seems to have finally arrived in the Court of Chancery, all mixed up with other cases including Woolley & Beecham v. Beecham (is this Thomas vs Henry somehow?) I'm fairly sure that the Court of Chancery is not a court of record - in other words there is no official record of the proceedings, and often only the judge's summing up is reported. Sometimes there were motions to have the proceedings in the judge's chambers (ie in private) as it served no public interest except nosiness, but the judge(s) often refused this.

The Court of Chancery was housed in the Bankruptcy Buildings on Carey Street on the north side of the Royal Courts of Justice, designed in the Italianate style by Sir John Taylor in 1893. It was previously in its own building on Chancery Lane beside Lincoln's Inn Fields, and the Public Record Office started to move in from 1907.

The two main judges to hear the suit were Sargant, J and Eve, J. Harry Eve in particular was quite outspoken and critical about Sir Thomas Beecham's occupation and lifestyle. On being informed that Sir Thomas Beecham had spent a fortune in advancing the cause of music in the realm, Eve asked one of those time-honoured judicial questions: "What good is it?" When he expressed irritation that Sir Thomas was hard-pressed to get by on £20,000 per annum he was not being unreasonable, since a high court judge only got paid £3,000 in 1921 and the profession felt they were due an increase in their emolument.

Extra refs

• - Royal Opera House
• - Covent Garden

Search for "Joseph Beecham" at https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=TTDA&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CCS67308673&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco

The Times, Saturday, 17 February 1917, p. 3

"CHANCERY DIVISION. THE SALE OF THE COVENT GARDEN ESTATE,IN re THE ESTATE Of SIR JOSEPH BEECHAM, BT.,(Before Mr. Justice Sargant) A motion in several actions with reference to this estate came before his Lordship to-day with a view to their consolidation and for decision as to what party should have the conduct of the proceedings. The only interesting facts in the case were those relating to the negotiations and contracts for the sale by the Duke of Bedford of the Covent Garden estate, which was said to include four theatres, five or more markets, and Bow-street Police Station.

It was stated that Mr Mallaby-Deeley had had negotiations with the Duke for the purchase of the estate, and that the late Sir Joseph Beecbam had approached Mr. Mallaby-Deeley with a view to becoming the actual purchaser, and to obtain the contract had paid Mr. Mallaby-Deeley and others sums amounting to £250.000. Then Sir Joseph Beecham in July, 1914, had contracted directly with the Duke for the purchase of the Covent Garden estate for £ 2,000,000. The sum of £200,000, on deposit, was payable at once, and a further deposit of £50,000 was payable on or before July 28, 1914, and these sums were duly paid. The balance of £1.750,000 was payable on November 11, 1914, and if this sum was then paid the purchaser was to be allowed a rebate of £70,000.

Before this contract was signed Sir Joseph Beecham had agreed to sell the benefit of the contract and the deposit for £550,000 to Mr. Ormrod, or, in other words, after paying the two sums of £250,000 each, Sir Joseph Beecham stood to make a profit of £50,000. The breaking out of the war prevented Mr. Ormrod froum completing his contract, although he paid several instalments of his purchase money, and, owing to the same cause. Sir Joseph Beecham and the Duke of Bedford in September, 1915, entered into an agreement extending the time for completion of the contract till June 24, 1917, the rebate of £70,000 being reduced to £8,750.

Later on there were negotiations between Sir Joseph Beecham and the Duke of Bedford as to leaving a portion of the purchase money on mortgage, the latter insisting on having Sir Joseph Beecham's personal covenant for payment of the mortgage moneys and interest. Such a covenant, however, became impossible by the death of Sir Joseph Beecham.

Mr. P. 0. Lawrence, K.C., Mr. Romer, K.C., Mr A. Grant, K.C., Mr. Jenkins, K.C., Mr. Maugham K.C., Mr. Hunt, Mr. Ashworth James, Mr. Corrie, Mr. Beebee, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. H. Mather, and Mr. Courthope Wilson were the counsel engaged.

MR. JUSTICE SARGANT held that the conduct of the proceedings should remain in the hands of the London solicitorS, and he made an order for the administration of the real and personal estate. Acting on the discretion given to him by Order 35, Rule 16, he transferred the proceedings in the action in which the order for administration was made from the Liverpool District Registry to London. He said that the estate was solvent, but that difficulties of administration arose with reference to the contract as to the Covent Garden estate, which could best be dealt with in London. The administration order would be made in the first action, the other actions being stayed."

Sir Thomas Beecham's Estate, Ltd.

The Times, Wednesday, 4 April 1917, p. 14

Announcement of sale of 8 Arkwright Rd, by auction in May, on the orders of Mr. Justice Eve. See also #Art collection. Constable Salisbury Cathedral was sold in May 1917, Turner Walton Bridges, in December 1919. See #Art collection

In April 1917 Thos. and Harry agreed with the executors to purchase the residuary estate for £575,000, after discharging the estate's total indebtedness of £2,131,571, of which £39,763 was unsecured, including the debt of £1.25m for the Covent Garden mortgage. The assets of Joseph Beecham's estate (mostly property) were valued at sufficient to provide a surplus of £78,724.

In 1918 Thomas (and perhaps Henry) formed a company, Sir Thomas Beecham's Estate, Ltd., to legally separate the assets of the late Sir Joseph' Beecham's residuary estate from other affairs. It was registered with a capital of £500,000. On March 22 1921 Mr. Justice Astbury made a compulsory winding-up order for this company.

Make all ref names!

A winding up order for Sir Thomas Beecham's Estate, Ltd. was made in March 1921; this was after the errant Sir Thomas Beecham finally turned up in the Court of Chancery, in answer to a summons to give evidence about a Receiving Order which he seemed to have been evading since 1919... Having spent ?two years in the USA? Maybe not...

• "No. 32270". The London Gazette. 25 March 1921. pp. 2459–2460. - a winding up order for "SIR THOMAS BEECHAM'S ESTATE Limited."
• "No. 32387". The London Gazette. 12 July 1921. p. 5612. - under the heading "First Meeting", relating to the same company.

The liquidators were appointed in September 1921:

• "No. 32465". The London Gazette. 23 September 1921. p. 7502. - appointment of liquidators

Although the winding-up wasn't finally completed until July 1928, the debts of both Sir Joseph and Sir Thomas had been written off by 1923.

• "No. 33411". The London Gazette. 10 July 1928. pp. 5373–5375. - dissolution of the company

Separate issue

• "No. 33136". The London Gazette. 26 February 1926. p. 1476. - liquidation of The SIR THOMAS BEECHAM OPERA COMPANY Limited - probably not needed in this article.

Through the terms of Sir Joseph Beecham's will, Thos. Beecham became to entitled to 46% of the income from the pill-making business, which interest amounted to £90,000 a year gross, although he hadn't received anything yet by 1921.<C&G 1921> As part of discharging his father's debts he agreed to pay this income over five years to the executors of the Beecham estate, with 'just' £15,000 per annum for himself, later rising to £20,000 (and Henry £5,000 rising to £10,000.) The sale of Jos. Beecham's properties for around £1m, and Thomas's diverted income from the pill-manufacturing business would have amounted to $1.25m, plus interest on the loan from Parr's Bank.

Whatever Beecham's estimates of the expected income of Beecham's Pills, in 1917 the Chancery judges had authorized Charles Rowed and Henry Beecham to continue to manage the pill firm, the net profit of which increased steadily to just under £150,000 in 1918/9 and £160-170,000 in 1920.

Covent Garden Estate Company

Also update Owners, lessees and managers of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden -

NOW ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is to finalise the exact chronological order of events and, having extracted the relevant mostly financial information, delete/hide the excess verbiage.

The Covent Garden Estate Company was set up in 1918 to to do what? Manage the theatre? Of curse, the actual lease still belonged to the Grand Opera Syndicate Ltd.

Aha! All you have to do is read... "Shortly afterwards (in 1917 i fink) a Chancery suit was instituted for the purpose of unravelling [Jos Beecham's] affairs, and eventually it was agreed by all parties, and confirmed by a court order, that a private company (the Covent Garden Estate Company) should be formed, in which Sir Joseph's sons, Sir Thomas and Henry, should be directors, and that they should complete the contract made between their father and the Duke.

Sir Thomas and his younger brother Henry (Harry) obtained a 5-year mortgage of £1.25m from Duke of Bedford, and procured a loan to settle some of the debt outstanding to him. On 30 July 1918 the Duke and his trustees conveyed the estate, which then consisted of 231 properties, five victuallers' licences, three fee-farm rents and the whole complex of market rights, to the Covent Garden Estate Company, subject to a mortgage of £1,250,000—this being the unpaid balance of the purchase price then still due to the Duke.

Well, well - here's a summary of the whole affair from Thomas Beecham's appearance in Chancery in October 1921, from The Chemist and Druggist §§§

From 1918–1924 the freeholder of the theatre was the Covent Garden Estate Company. Its existence had been agreed to by all interested parties in the Court of Chancery case, and ordered by the Court in 1917, its sole purpose being to complete the contract begun in 1914 between Sir Joseph Beecham and the Duke of Bedford. Its main business was to sell enough of Sir Joseph's estate (mainly property) to repay the mortgage of £1.25m from the Duke of Bedford for the Bloomsbury Estate. The remainder of Sir Joseph's property ("the residual estate") was sold to Thomas and Henry Beecham by the estate's executors in April 1917, subsequent upon their settling the rest of their father's indebtedness.

The chairman of the Covent Garden Estate Company was the businessman Charles Frederick Boston (one of Joseph Beecham's many sons-in-law); The other directors were Dr. Fred Duke-Wooley, and Sir Thomas & Henry Beecham. The main purpose of this company was to ensure that the debt/mortgage owed to the Duke of Bedford was paid off. The company was backed by a loan for £400,000 by Parr's Bank of Warrington i fink.

April 1919

Mr. Justice Eve, by "Ape Junior" in Vanity Fair. Original caption reads "A Good Judge".

"A question how certain clauses in the will of Sir Joseph Beecham were to be construed came before Mr. Justice Eve. His Lordship decided that a sum of £258,420, which was standing at the time of the testator's death to the credit of a special deposit account at the St. Helen's branch of Parr's Bank, passed under the will as part of a bequest of the testator's business. (Re Sir Joseph Beecham, deceased ; Woolley v. Beecham.)"

Few of them, it seems, had much time to devote to the task: Charles Boston had his own business to run; Henry Beecham was running the pill-manufacturing business in St. Helens; Woolley, dunno; and Tommy Beecham was conducting opera...

Although he was a director of the company, Sir Thomas Beecham continued with his operatic conducting career; but the 1920 and 1921 seasons were a critical failure and a financial fiasco. His Beecham Opera Company failed, the Official Receiver was called in, and Beecham himself was the subject of a Receiving Order in 1919/stayed for a year/1921. With plenty of free time, and no money for opera, Beecham devoted his efforts to tying up his father's estate. Then at CGE co offices every day.(Shepherd)

The 1919 and 1920 seasons of the Beecham Opera Company resulted in a financial fiasco. The liquidators were called in and Beecham was likely to be personally petitioned for bankruptcy through his own indebtedness. NB! Beecham was the subject of a Receiving Order from 1919, but was never actually made bankrupt: it was more advantageous for the executors of the Joseph Beecham estate that he remain (at least technically) solvent.

In October 1920 James White made an offer to pay Sir Thomas Beecham's debts in full, to the tune of £100,000.

SIR T. BEECHAM'S AFFAIRS. OFFER MADE BY MR. JAMES WHITE. The identity of Sir Thomas Beecham's friend, who. at the meeting of Sir Thomas's creditors at Bankruptcy-buildings on Wednesday [6th October 1920], was stated to be willing to sign a cheque for a sum which would pay all his debts in full, has been disclosed. It was announced yesterday that he is Mr. James White, the financier, cotton magnate, and racehorse owner. Mr. White has been connected with the Beecham family for many years, and at one time managed the business affairs of Sir Joseph Beecham, the founder of the great pill business. A Press representative was informed by Mr. White's secretary last evening that it was incorrect to say that Mr. White was finding Sir Thomas Beecham £100,000. The facts were that certain negotiations were pending for the sale of some of the Beecham estate properties. If the transaction were completed, Sir Thomas would receive about £100,000 out of it. See also #James White.

He retired from public musical life in 1921 for several years to sort out both his own and his late father's financial affairs. Every day he went to the Covent Garden Estate Company's offices and helped to sell a million pounds worth of property.

A winding up order for Sir Thomas Beecham's Estate, Ltd. was made in March 1921; this would have been when the errant Sir Thomas finally turned up to answer a Receiving Order in the Court of Chancery, which he seemed to have been evading since 1919, having spent ?two years in the USA? Maybe not... It appears that the rest of Sir Joseph Beecham's residuary estate was to be sold as part of repaying the mortgage to the Duke, and possibly settle Beecham's own debt.

• "No. 32270". The London Gazette. 25 March 1921. pp. 2459–2460. - a winding up order for "SIR THOMAS BEECHAM'S ESTATE Limited."
• "No. 32387". The London Gazette. 12 July 1921. p. 5612. - under the heading "First Meeting", relating to the same company.

The Times, 21 July 1921.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION. SIR THOMAS 8EECHAM'S AFFAIRS, RE SIR JOSEPH BEECHAM DEC.- WOOLLEY v. BEECHAM.,(Before Mr. Justice Eve.)

Mr. Jenkins, K.C., applied for the speedy hearing of a summons in this matter. He said that under the will of the testator, Sir Thomas Beecham took a protected life interest of 46 per cent. of the business. As the estate was not clear, it was carried on under a scheme which had been modified from time to time by orders. Under that scheme, Sir Thomas Beecham's allowance was £20,000 a year. That was what the trustees had been paying. A receiving order had been made against Sir Thomas Beecham, and the public examination had been adjourned until October. The trustees wished to be advised whether they could continue the allowance, in view of a possible bankruptcy, and a summons had been taken out by them against Sir Thomas Beecham and others, asking the guidance of the Court in the matter before the Vacation. The summons was only issued on July 15.

It had been suggested, on the one hand, that on the true construction of the will a forfeiture on bankruptcy would date only from the date of the bankruptcy itself, all intervening transactions being valid. On the other hand, it was said that the forfeiture on bankruptcy dated back to the act of bankruptcy, and that the income received between those two dates was not payable, but might be applied under the discretionary trust. There had been no delay since the point had been brought to the notice of the trustees. Mr. Justice Eve said that it was a scandal that Sir Thomas Beecham had not surrendered for examination simply because he was abroad. Mr. Jenkins said he understood that that was not so. The £20,000 a year, free of income-tax, was not more than a fourth of what he was entitled to if the estate were clear.

Mr. Justice Eve said that what irritated him was that there were three or four very large estates being administered in his chambers, and it seemed to him that the parties thought that they bad a right to issue a summons at the last moment, and to ask to have it brought on at once, to the prejudice of equally honest and deserving litigants, who were more than anxious to get their cases settled in the ordinary way. He much resented the attitude that because they had large means they could do anything. His sympathy was with the trustees, but if Sir Thomas Beecham could not save out of the £20.000 a year enough to live for a few weeks he was not deserving of assistance. He would allow the summons to be in the paper on Tuesday next. Mr. Hunt appeared for Sir Thomas Beecham. Solicitors - Messrs. Cox and Lafone; Messrs. Swan, Hardman, and Co.

It's not unreasonable that Mr. Justice Eve was irritated if Sir Thomas Beecham couldn't manage on £20,000 a year, since a high court judge only got paid £3,000 in 1921. What further emoluments did the pay-rise offer?

The Times, Wednesday, 27 July 1921, p. 4, Issue: 42783. Chancery Division. Sir Thomas Beecham's Affairs.

CHANCERY DIVISION. SIR THOMAS BEECHAM'S AFFAIRS. RE SIR JOSEPH BEECHAM, DECEASED. BEECHAM v. BEECHAM. (Before Mr. Justice Eve.) This summons was taken out by the trustees of the testator's will asking for the guidance of the Court on the question whether they might pay to Sir Thomas Beecham any sum for his personal maintenance and support until October 31 next.

Mr. Jenkins, K.C., and Mr. Mather appeared for the trustees; Mr. E. Knowles Corrie for Mr. Henrv Beecham; and Mr. Maugham, K.C., Mr. Tindale Davis, and Mr. Hunt for Sir Thomas Beecham. Mr. Jenkins applied that the matter might be heard in camera. Mr. Justice Eve said that he saw no reason for complying with that request. Mr. Jenkins said that he appeared for the trustees of the will. Sir Thomas Beecham was the testator's eldest son. He was married and had two sons, who were both under age. Under the will of the testator which was made on September 28, 1916, a large income was dealt with. Complications had arisen, as the testator had entered into a contract to purchase the Covent Garden estate for two millions. He died on October 23, 1916.

The business of the testator was the subject of a specific bequest, and 46 per cent. of the profits went to Sir Thomas Beecham. A scheme had been prepared owing to the complications. and by an order of June 21, 1918, the Covent Garden estate and the business were dealt with and an allowance to Sir Thomas Beecham was made of £15,000 a year, free of income-tax, and to Mr. Henry Beecham of £5,000. By a later date these amounts were raised to £20,000 and £10,000.

On October 3, 1919, a receiving order was made against Sir Thomas Beecham, but there had been no adjudication, and the examination was adjourned to October next. It was obviously not in the interests of the creditors that bankruptcy should supervene. Up to June last payments were made to Sir Thomas Beecham of the allowance In the ordinary way, but a doubt had recently arisen whether in the circumstances the trustees ought to go on paying the allowance. No one contended that the mere making of the receiving order amounted to a forfeiture under the will. On the other hand, if adjudication were made it would create a forfeiture. The question then would arise to what date the title of the trustee would go back (Montefiore v. Guedalla [1901] 1 Ch., 445). The trustees of the will might then rely on the discretionary trust contained in it. He therefore suggested that the Court might make a declaration or order giving the trustees liberty to act on the assumption tlhat the discretionary trust was in operation. In October the matter might be reconsidered. and meanwhile the trustees would be protected. Mr. Corrie supported this view.

Mr. Maugham, for Sir Thomas Beecham, referred to words which had fallen from his Lordship on the last occasion of the hearing. He said that Sir Thomas Beecham had not been free since the death of the testator. Large liabilities had arisen not in any disgraceful way, but a fortune had been spent by him in advancing the cause of music in this country.

Mr. Justice Eve - What good is it?

Mr. Maugham said that opinions must differ as to the meritoriousness or otherwise of that expenditure. As far as Sir Thomas Beecham's own personal convenience and comfort were concerned it would be a great advantage to him to go bankrupt, but for reasons which were entirely creditable to him he did not desire that. Informally the creditors had assented to a scheme to pay 20s. in the pound. It had not come before the Court yet, but there was great hope that before October it would have gone through. Mr. Justice Eve asked what had become of the institution to which Sir Thomas Beecham had assigned his interests.

Mr. Maugham said that that was a joint stock company which had been wound up. Mr. Justice Eve said that he could not give an authority to make payments on a footing which would only arise on the happening of an event. Mr. Maugham said that they only desired to preserve the trustees from liability. If there should be an adjudication which dated back then the trustees woould be able to justify their acts if the discretion applied under Clause 18 of the will. The form of order might provide for that until October 31 or further order. Mr. Justice Eve said that if they were content to take the order in that form he was willing to make it. The order could go as if the discretionary trust had arisen following the words of the clause, and would take effect from the date of the last payment by the trustees. The costs of all parties would come out of the estate. Solicitors.- Messrs. Cox and Lafone for Messrs. Bremner, Sons, and Corlett, Liverpool; Messrs. Russell-Cooke and Co.; Messrs. Swann, Hardman, and Co.

The liquidators for Sir Thomas Beecham's Estate Ltd. (the holding company for the residual estate of Sir Joseph Beecham) were appointed in September 1921:

• "No. 32465". The London Gazette. 23 September 1921. p. 7502. - appointment of liquidators

Although the winding-up of Sir Thomas Beecham's Estate Ltd. wasn't finally completed until July 1928, the debts of both Sir Joseph and Sir Thomas were written off in 1922 and 1923 respectively.

• "No. 33411". The London Gazette. 10 July 1928. pp. 5373–5375. - dissolution of the company

June 1922 - "COVENT GARDEN ESTATE. AUCTION IN MAY. Covent Garden Estate Company (the owners of what was originally this section of the Bedford estate, purchased by the late Sir Joseph Beecham) have decided to sell the whole of their properties (except the market), and have instructed Messrs. Hampton and Sons to offer the properties by auction at St. James's-Square, on May 16. The sale will include business premises in the streets radiating from Covent Garden Market, including Strand and Aldwych theatres. The properties are freehold. The rent-roll is between £15,000 and £20,000 a year, and the premises are largely leased to firms.,It is the intention of the company, if practicable, to close the estate, and the reserves will be fixed accordingly."

The Times, Issue: 43089, Friday, 21 July 1922 - Sir Thomas Beecham's Affairs.

SIR THOMAS BEECHAM'S AFFAIRS. The application of Sir Thomas Beecham, Bt., for the approval of a composition of 20s in the pound payable to the creditors under an receiving order made against his estate on October 1, 1919, came before Mr. Registrar Hope yesterday in the Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Clayton, K.C., who appeared wiith Mr. Tindale Davis for the debtor, asked that the application might be adjourned over the Long Vacation. He said that arrangements were in progress to pay 20s. in the pound as soon as the proposal was approved of by the Court. Under the terms of the scheme accepted by the creditors the composition was to be paid in four instalments of 5s. in the pound at intervals of three months. Mr. Justice Eve had approved of a scheme of arrangement under which the executors of the late Sir Joseph Beecham would provide £40,000 towards payment of the composition, and a friend of Sir Thomas Beecham had agreed to pay £20,000 into Court, as soon as the amount required was ascertained. The delay in completing the arrangements arose from the failure of the debtor's advisers to secure a final adjustment of a claim of £24,000 for income-tax and super-tax. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue had stated that the matter could not be settled until September, and it was impossible, therefore, to ascertain the amount required to pay the composition.

Mr. J. F. C. Bennett, solicitor, said he appeared for thirtv-three members of the Sir Thomas Beecham Orchestra who had lodged proofs of debt for £200 each for damages for breach of contract. Some arrangement might be reached under which a payment on account could be made to them.

Mr. Clayton - If they will approach Sir Thomas Beecham I think that some payment on account of their claims may be made.

Mr. Registrar Hope, after hearing Mr. W. P. Bowyer, Senior Official Receiver, said that in the interests of everybody an adjournment was desirable. The application was accordingly adjourned to November 2 [1922]

The mortgage from the Duke of Bedford was finally redeemed on 7 September 1922.

The Times Issue: 43179, Friday, 3 November 1922, p. 4. Sir Thomas Beecham's Affairs.

SIR THOMAS BEECHAM'S AFFAIRS. The application of Sir Thomas Beechan, Bt., for the approval of a scheme for the arrangement of his affairs came before Mr. Registrar Hope yesterday in the Bankruptcy Court. A receiving order was made against Sir Thomas Beecham's estate in October, 1919, and the scheme of arrangement, which had been accepted by the creditors, provided for the payment of his debts in full in four instalments of 5s. in the £. Mr. E. Parke, Deputy Official Receiver, attended; Mr. Farwell appeared for the liquidator of Sir Thomas Beecham's Estates, Limited; Mr. Mather for the executors of the estate of the late Sir Joseph Beecham ; and Mr. Clayton, K.C., and Mr. Tindale Davis, for the debtor.

The Deputy Official Receiver said that the sum required to pay the first instalment of 5s. in the £, together with the costs and the preferential claims, was originally estimated at £29,600. The estimate was afterwards reduced to £21,679, but since the last hearing he had received notice of additional claims amounting to £233,000. The largest of these claims was for £225,000, and was made by Sir. W. B. Peat, as liquidator of Sir Thomas Beecham's Estates, Limited. If these new claims were to be admitted, the sum required to pay the first instalment of 5s. in the £ would be increased to £81,679. Mr. Clayton contended that the claim of £225,000 was altogether illusory. Up to the present it had resulted in a proof of debt for only £20,000, and an application would be made to expunge it. The executors of the late Sir Joseph Beecham's estate were proposing to apply to the Court of Chancery for permission to raise a sum sufficient to discharge all the outstanding liabilities of the debtor in one payment, instead of by instalments, but they required time to consider the position in the light of the new claims.

Mr. Mather said that it was in the interests of all the beneficiaries of the late Sir Joseph Beecham's estate that the receiving order against the debtor should be discharged as soon as possible, and the executors already had at their disposal £40,000 to be devoted to that end. The REGISTRAR, while deprecating the repeated adjournments of the application, said that it would obviously benefit the creditors if the executors were encouraged to do an that they could to discharge the liabilities. The hearing would be adjourned till March 28 [1923].

In 1923 Beecham's personal liabilities, amounting to £41,558, were also paid in full.

The Times Issue

43302, Thursday, 29 March 1923 - Sir Thomas Beecham's Debts.

SIR THOMAS BEECHAM'S DEBTS. PAYMENT IN FULL. An adjourned application was made in the Bankruptcy 'Court yesterday. before Mr. Registrar Hope, for the approval:of a composition of 20s. in the pound, payable in four instalments, which bad been accepted by the creditors of Sir Thomas Beecham, Bt., against whose estate a receiving order was made on October 1, 1919. Mr. Walter Boyle, Senior Official Receiver, attended. Mr. J. F. C. Bennett, solicitor, appeared for thirty members of the Sir Thomas Beecham Orchestra, who had lodged proofs of debt; Mr. Mather for the executors of the estate of the late Sir Joseph Beecham; and Mr. Clayton, K.C., and Mr. Tindale Davis for the debtor.

The Senior Official Reciever said that the outstanding unsecured liabilities bad been agreed at £41,558. He had been told by the executors of the estate of the late Sir Joseph Beecham that a number of other claims would be withdrawn, paid, or otherwise disposed of before the date of the application, and in pursuance of that undertaking a number of letters had been received from creditors saying that their debts bad been extinguished. These creditors included Sir William Peat, chartered accountant, who, as liquidator of the Sir Thomas Beecham Estates, Limited, had lodged a provisional proof of debt for £20,000 and gave notice of a total claim of about £250,000. Sir William Peat in his letter said that he withdrew his proof of debt and had no further claim to make against the debtor's estate. The amount required to pay the 1st instalment of the composition was £14,650, and the amount required to pay 20s. in the pound, with the costs, was £44,200.

Mr. Registrar Hope - I understand that there is a suggestion that the composition of 20s. in the pound will be paid at once.

Mr. Clayton - It is more than a suggestion now. The sum necessary to pay the composition in full is actually in Court.

Mr. Registrar Hope - That is a technical variation of the terms of the proposal accepted by the creditors, but I presume that the trustee will have no objection to receiving the instalments in advance.

Mr. Clayton - No objection has been raised. I should imagine he will be very glad to receive them. Mr. Clayton, continuing, said it was clear that if the debtor were adjudged bankrupt the creditors would receive nothing; while under the scheme they would have 20s. in the pound cash down. The debtor's difficulties arose out of a contract entered into by his father to purchase the Covent Garden estate from the Duke of Bedford for two million pounds sterling. At the date of the father's death in 1916 a deposit of £250,000 only had been paid, and the delay in settling the debtor's affairs was entirely due to the large amount outstanding under that contract and to complications which had arisen.

Mr. Mather said that after protracted negotiations the executors had succeeded in obtaining the consent of the Court of Chancery to the raising of £44,200 to pay Sir Thomas Beecham's debts in full, and he was prepared to hand over a cheque for that amount to the Senior Official Receiver.

Mr. Registrar Hope said that the composition would be approved, and the receiving order discharged.

Times, 25 July 1923

Law Notices - Chancery Division - Lord Chancellor's Court (Eve, J.) - re B's settlement (in camera) re Sir Joseph Beecham (dec.) - That's it.

Thus ended in 1923 this long-winded and drawn-out legal affair, which had begun with the death of Sir Joseph Beecham, 1st Baronet in October 1916. The liabilities (ie death duties and other debts) of Sir Joseph's estate were eventually paid off by 1922, and those of Sir Thomas in 1923, and the Chancery case was finally wound up. Sir Thomas Beecham was thus able to receive his dividend of 45% of the the pill-making business for his lifetime.(see Chancery evidence ref) However, the fate of the Covent Garden estate, and the pill-making businesses on both sides of the Atlantic, had yet to be decided.

Joseph B in Lucas: pp 7, 20, 108, 136-7, 146, 158-9

Henry Beecham

Knebworth House, Hertfordshire

After Joseph Beecham's death in 1916, his younger son Henry continued to run the St Helen's factory with Charles Rowed as the highly experienced general manager. The firm continued to make substantial profits, which partly contributed towards paying off Sir Joseph Beecham's substantial debts.

In 1918 Henry Beecham took ownership of Lympne Castle in Hythe, Kent and added the East Wing, which "proved an advantageous addition during the Second World War, as — on a clear day — it was apparently possible to see the launch of V1 rockets in Calais. That allowed the coastline guns to be readied in time to give them a sporting chance of shooting the rockets down as they passed over Hythe Bay."

Well, there are plenty of internet references to the well-known champion of Delius' music, "Sir Henry Beecham". Henry (although never knighted) seems to have bought a set of Holy Grail tapestries by William Morris, possibly a much later set than the originals woven from 1890 to c.1900, and had them at Lympne. Indeed, "Final versions of The Summons and The Attainment were woven by Morris & Company between 1937 and 1932 for Henry Beecham of Lympne Castle, Kent. This version of The Attainment was sold at Sotheby's in March 1987, and The Summons is housed at the Munich Stadtmuseum.

• Wildman, Stephen; Christian, John (1998). Edward Burne-Jones, Victorian Artist-dreamer. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. ISBN 9780870998584.

During the early 1920s Henry Beecham, describing himself as a 'wholesale druggist' in the 1921 Census, and still in his early 30s, rented Knebworth House (the seat of the Earl of Lytton) with his wife Ethel and his children Helen Audrey, Joseph and Henry, all under five. Their household comprised: the housekeeper; a trained nurse and a children’s nurse; and a personal maid, with her husband as motor mechanic.

On June 24 1921, Henry Beecham was convicted of manslaughter at Hertford Assizes and sentenced to twelve months in prison. In January near Baldock he had lost control of his Vauxhall 30-98 4.5 litre sports car at a speed of between 40 and 65 mph, and skidded into a group of three children, killing a boy and seriously injuring his sister. The car was reported to have swerved at a bad bend in the road. Another man and two women were also passengers in the car. Beecham had already been "frequently prosecuted for driving to the public danger." A month later he took his case to the Court of Criminal Appeal on the grounds that a) the judge had misdirected the jury, and that b) his cross-examination had led to Beecham making a statement which essentially put his own character in question. However, the appeal judges dismissed the case, saying that although the trial judge's summing-up was sadly defective, the jury must have certainly found Beecham guilty of manslaughter in any case.

Losing all interest in the business after his conviction, Henry sold the entirety of the pill-manufacturing concern for a nominal £32,500 (£835,400) to Joseph Beecham's estate. His father had given him the American business in c.1910, and the Lancashire business in his will in 1916. After getting out of prison in 1923 Henry went back to America on the SS Baltic.

Beecham Estates and Pills, Ltd., 1924-1928

The Covent Garden Estate Company was sold to Beecham Estates and Pills Ltd. in 1924

The Times, May 26, 1924, p. 22

Full-page announcement of Beecham Estates and Pills Ltd., and prospectus. Plus lots of details about the remainder of what the CG Estate Company still owned, and the financial state of Beecham's Pills. Some properties may have been subject to reversion of Rack rent, ie the full market value which wasn't being charged at the time.

During the closing months of the Chancery case, the financier Philip Hill was contacted for advice about the future of the Beechams's financial affairs. With Henry out of the business, and Sir Thomas dedicated to music-making, Hill's advised the formation of a limited company with the backing of some colleagues. The company of Beecham Estates and Pills, Ltd. was formed in May 1924. With Hill as a director and the backer, and effectively in control of the company, he bought the entire assets of the Covent Garden Estate Co., thus separating the Beecham family from direct control of the pill-making business which old Thomas Beecham had started three generations previously. Check, fool!

The new company, Beecham Estates and Pills, Ltd., owned the entire pill-making businesses in St. Helens & New York (having been sold by the sole owner Henry Beecham after his conviction for a nominal £32,500 (£835,400) to Joseph Beecham's estate. ?Which may have been Sir Thomas Beecham's Estate, Ltd. or less likely? the Covent Garden Estate Company), and (after various properties had been sold off) the remaining Covent Garden estate. This included the Market & the Opera House, Tavistock Hotel, Bedford Chambers and numerous small shops and businesses in Floral Street, James Street, & Russell Street. For more about Hill, see also Corley 1994, pp. 23–24.

Having to deal with both the Covent Garden estate and the pill-making business on either side of the Atlantic, Hill became a busy man and, to safeguard his financial interests, founded the Philip Hill Investment Trust, the forerunner of Hill Samuel.

1925 - Court of Chancery again

This is where Joseph Beecham's assets and debts were both adjudged to be 'business assets', whatever their monetary worth, of Sir Joseph Beecham's estate and its legatees.

"5466. Testator [ie Sir Joseph Beecham] bequeathed his business & business assets upon certain trusts thereinafter mentioned. At the date of his death there were two large sums of money standing to his credit in two separate banks, with regard to one of which there was a large sum due by way of overdraft in excess of the account : —

Held : the two funds passed to the legatees of the business as business assets.

This testator was a man of wealth not altogether confined to his business. When he ultimately came to deal with the residue, he obviously intended to exonerate it from debts which were properly chargeable against the business. Now, the indebtedness to the bankers, which had originated in a current or loan account in London, was not in connection with the business. Private speculation had involved the testator in very large liabilities, which, having regard to his position, were raised by a large sum on loan. The question is whether, in that state of things, it can be said that the indebtedness of testator to the bank to an amount in excess of the deposit account, was a liability affecting this business asset so as to impose on that business asset the obligation to discharge the loan on the account to the London bank.

I do not think it can (Eve, J.). — Re Beecham, Woolley v. Beecham (1919). 63 Sol. Jo. 430."

The Times, Saturday, 16 April 1932: Chancery Division - Thomas Beecham was again the subject of a Receiving Order in December 1930 - his sons sued the trustees of the £500,000 trust set up in Sir Joseph Beecham's will. Neither they nor Lady Utica Beecham were getting any income, and thought they should. The trustees were Sir Harold John de Courcy, (1877-1976), Alderman of the City of London; Charles F, P. McNeill; and Mr. John Robinson Stevens.

Separation of Joseph Beecham's estate and manufacturing concerns

See also hidden notes far below about these people

After considerable development and expansion of the pill-making business, including a trained chemist WHO, I wonder?, Hill was able by 1928 to hive off the Beecham estates activities into a new company, the Covent Garden Properties Company Ltd. The patent medicine side regained its autonomy as Beechams Pills Ltd., with himself as chairman. Bla bla hurrah.

James White

Oct. 8, 1920 The Times - Sir T. Beecham's Affairs - Offer made by Mr. James White White offered to pay Sir Thomas Beecham's debts in full, with the prospective sale of some properties from the Beecham estate netting Sir Thomas the sum of £100,000.

White bought up shares in cotton mills and weaving firms, generally not to the advantage of the existing owners or shareholders. He also attempted to manipulate the price of shares of British Controlled Oilfields, a Canadian firm with interests in Venezuelan reserves. This didn't end well.

• Higgins, D; Toms, JS; and Filatotchev, I (2015). Ownership, financial strategy and performance: the Lancashire cotton textile industry, 1918-1938. Business History, 57 (1). pp. 97-121. ISSN 0007-6791 https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/94992/

• Beginning and Early Stage of the Venezuelan Oil Industry, By Carlos Giesen.

History of the Venezuelan oil industry

White had contracted to buy the site of the 1924 British Empire Exhibition at Wembley and its fixtures and fittings, but it fell through and he ended his life in massive debt of around a million pounds.

The Times , Thursday, 13 October 1927, Issue: 44711 - Beecham Trust Liquidation.

BEECHAM TRUST LIQUIDATION. MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AND SHAREHOLDERS. Under the compulsory winding up order made against the Beecham Trust, Limited, of 218, Strand, W.C., the statutory first meetings of the creditors and shareholders were held yesterday at Bankruptcy-buidings before Mr. H. E. Burgess, Senior Official Receiver. The CHAIRMAN reported that the order to wind up the company was made in consequence of the death of Mr. James White. A provisional winding up order was made before the petition was heard and Mr. Russell Kettle was appointed by the Court as special manager to assist in the liquidation.

The company was incorporated at the beginning of 1917 to carry on the business of bankers, capitalists, financiers, concessionaires and merchants. The nominal capital of £400,000 was divided into 300,000 Preference shares of £1 each and 20,000 Ordinary shares of £5 each. The paid up capital amounted to £310,009. So long as dividends were regularly paid the Preference shareholders were not entitled to vote at general meetings. That clause became important because Mr. James White, the principal holder of the Ordinary shares, was able to control the Trust without calling in the Preference shareholders to discuss the position, as the dividends had been regularly paid up to the present year. Mr. White promoted the company. Before its formation he was a land and estate agent. He had, in association with the late Sir Joseph Beecham, Bt., carried through financial transactions of a considerable magnitude.

After the death of Sir Joseph Beecham in October, 1916, Mr. White decided to continue his financial operations through the medium of a limited company.,The company's operations included the purchase of large blocks of shares of important trading companies and the disposal of them to the public; the underwriting of share issues; the granting of loans; and extensive dealings in cotton, rubber and land. The company also acquired the share capital of George Edwardes (Daly's Theatre), Limited. The balance-sheet showed a loss of £86,549 from the inception of the company to June, 1919; a profit of £10,112 during the ensuing six months to December, 1919; a loss of £259,432 in 1920; profits of £105,483, £13,591, and £439,310 in 1921, 1922, and 1923 respectively; and a loss of £275,903 in 1924. :The operations between January 1. 1925, and the winding-up order (a period of 20 years), resulted in a loss of £690,459; but after making all necessary adjustments and revaluing the assets the total deficiency came out at almost double that amount.

The principal undertakings of the Trust included an agreement of July, 1926, to purchase from the liquidators of the British Empire Exhibition (1924) the site and buildings at Wembley for £300,000, and the fittings and equipment at a valuation of £5,000. In September, 1925, the Trust contracted to purchase the freehold premises at the corner of Tottenham Court-road and New Oxford-Street, belonging to Meux's Brewery, for £550,000. The interest of the Trust in George Edwardes (Daly's Theatre), Limited, had been transferred to the bankers of the Trust as security for overdrafts.

BRITISH CONTROLLED DEALS. Mr. Burgess next referred to the dealings of the Trust in the shares of British Controlled Oilflelds, Limited. He stated that in April, 1927, Mr. White, on behalf of the Trust, began to acquire a large number of Preferred Ordinary shares of $5 each, the company being a Canadian one. Apparently his object was to obtain a controlling interest in the shares, create a shortage on the market and subsequently sell at a handsome profit. The plan was not successful and, in the result. brokers who were instructed to purchase found themselves with large blocks of shares on their hands, of which shares the Trust could not take delivery, and the market value of which had fallen heavily. In all, bargains were opened to the extent of over £4,000,000 and there had been dealings representing close upon £1,000,000. Mr. White had drawn extensively upon the Trusts funds for his personal purposes, and at the date of the winding-up his indebtedness to the Trust amounted to £458.853.

Dealing with the present position, the Chairman said the accounts submitted under the liquidation showed assets estimated to produce £134,467 to meet unsecured liabilities of £1,098,850. So far as he could see nothing approaching the estimated value of the assets would be realized, and Mr. Russell Kettle, the special manager, in a report upon the assets, had expressed the opinion that an apparent return to the creditors of between 1s. 6d. and 2s. in the pound might possibly become a few pence in the pound only. The immediate cause of the failure could be attributed to the large speculation in British Controlled shares and to inability to finance the outstanding purchases at the end of June.

A resolution was unanimously passed for the Senior Official Receiver to remain in charge of the liquidation and for Mr. Russell Kettle's services as special manager to be retained.

Character and random info

Brief notes - need expanding, some to be placed in relevant sections, and proper reffing...

Smoking room at top of house - cap of Turkish design, long flowing tassel, richly coloured jacket decorated with gold-braided stripes and silver buttons(beecham p. 9) Collection of music-boxes (beecham p. 12) Enjoyed building - added a small concert hall to the Huyton house (beecham p. 13) Jos. Beecham ruled his business, giving personal attention to every side of it (beecham p 14) Enjoyed playing the organ, with the pedals and manuals quite out of synchrony - And these, it may be, were his happiest moments.(beecham p. 15) When Thomas was aged 10 and 11, his mother's "intermittent nervous malady obliged her to go southward to some place on the sea like Eastbourne or Bournemouth where she could be looked after until well again." (beecham p. 18-19) From c1888-91 Jos. made more trips to America, bring back central heating and equipping the factory/house with electric light, perhaps 1st in the country? (beecham p. 18) He had seen Lohengrin perhaps a hundred times in nearly every opera house of the world. (Beecham p. 158) By 1897 Josephine had become and almost chronic invalid, and he spent much of his abroad during the summers.(beecham p. 30) Outside of business he was a "man of pathetic simplicity and uncertain judgment." In family matters he always took advice from his lawyer or clergyman whose church he attended, his most intimate friend."(Beecham p. 31) Trip to US with Tommy in summer 1893, stayed at Astor House. + Chicago (beecham p. 27-8) 1899 - Josephine put away, complete estrangement.(beecham p. 35) Reconciliation with Tommy led to more plans to do opera (beecham p. 86) Name prominently associated with Sir Thomas's first Russian Opera season, was just as enthusiastic about the second season (beecham pp 125) Deep stuff about himself (beecham 157)

Family life

Beecham married Josephine Burnett (d. 3 Nov 1934) in 1873, against his parents' wishes (beecham 157). He had her committed to a sanatorium or insane asylum in Nottingham in 1899. She received a legal separation/divorce in 1901, freeing her from her enforced confinement.

They had eight children:

• Emily Beecham (7 April 1874 - c 1965)
• Sir Thomas Beecham, 2nd Bt. (29 April 1879 - 8 March 1961)
• Josephine Beecham (27 June 1881 - 12 February 1959) - married 1st Charles Frederick Boston, the leather importer, executor of Beecham's will and chairman of the The Covent Garden Estate Co., Ltd. Boston was previously married to Laura Geneste Drummond Boston. Married 2nd Thomas Lionel Scott in 1919
• Edith Beecham (25 July 1884 - ?), married Dr. Frederick Duke-Woolley in September 1910 -
• Jessie Beecham (30 January 1886 -  ?), married Leonce Delphin in June 1909.
• Henry Beecham (20 August 1888 - 10 January 1947), married Ethel Anne Baxter in October 1914 - oldest daughter was the poet Audrey Beecham and four sons
• Elsie Olive Beecham ( 17 November 1889 - ?) - married William Senior Ellis in October 1915, an accountant from St. Helens. Beecham refused to countenance the marriage, thinking he was only after his fortune - aware of her father's philandering, she accused him of hypocrisy and trying to control his daughter's lives.
• Amy Christine Beecham (20 February 1894 - ?) married firstly Reginald John Wrathall in March 1917, (died of pneumonia in October 1918) married secondly Rex Walker in 1919

Art collection

"Sir Joseph Beecham, Mayor of St. Helens, gave a garden-party at his residence, Ewanville, Huyton, on July 11, when there were about 1,500 guests, who had a most delightful afternoon's entertainment in spite of the somewhat dull weather. The company had also the opportunity of inspecting the fine pictures which adorn the walls of Ewanville, the collection being the companion to Sir Joseph's gallery in Hampstead, where there is one of the finest private collections in England."

"It is this period - roughly bridging the period between the death of Reynolds and the advent of Pre-Raphaelitism - which is best exemplified in Sir Jos. B's collection at Hampstead."

• Grundy, C. Reginald (February 1913). "Sir Joseph Beecham's Collection at Hampstead, Part I". The Connoisseur. XXXV (138): 69–78.

• Grundy, C. Reginald (May–August 1913). "The Beecham Collection, Part II". The Connoisseur. XXXVI: 101–108.

Includes portrait of Sir Jos. himself by Sir Luke Fildes, RA - WHERE IS IT NOW?

• Salisbury Cathedral from the Bishop's Grounds by Constable, now in the Met. NB This is not the same as the one in the V&A, Salisbury Cathedral from the Bishop's Grounds.
• River Llugwy, Betws-y-Coed by Benjamin W. Leader
• Return from the Warren by Landseer (chromolithograph, not the actual oil painting)
• The Mackerel Take by James Clarke Hook
• The Bay of Naples by William James Müller, now in Bristol Museum & Art Gallery
• Haymaking on Snowdon by David Cox
• Greenwich Hospital by George Vincent - this is the one formerly owned by Sir Cuthbert Quilter. See American Art News, jstor 25589034
• Gainsborough's Daughters (unfinished), now in the National Gallery, bought 1923.

The pictures were later sold by Sir Thomas to defray Beecham's enormous death duties, and the house was bought by the railway union ASLEF in 1921.

Auctions of Beecham's paintings:

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/860359
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/861776

5/7/1917 - Old English silver plate (May 7th 1917)

11/21/1918 - Decorative furniture, tapestry, Eastern rugs & carpets (21 Nov 1918) (from The Cell, Markyate near Dunstable)

Christie's London Sales 1865-1923

PAINTING SOLD,FOR £21,525 - SALISBURY CATHEDRAL, BY CONSTABLE - The Times, 17 May 1952, p. 6. "Another, 33½in. by 43½in., also done by the artist in 1826, which brought 6,200 guineas in the Sir Joseph Beecham sale in May, 1917 is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York."

The Times Feb. 12, 1917, p. 3 https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=TTDA&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CCS51841100&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco

"SALE OF THE BEECHAM PICTURES. TURNERS AND MORLANDS. In the years before the war habitués of Christie's always looked forward with special interest to the sale of pictures held in the King-street rooms at the week-end allotted to the Royal Academy private view and banquet. Since these tvo occasions usually brought to London collectors from all parts of the kingdom, Messrs. Christie reserved for that period in each year the dispersal of some fine collection of paintings, and the success of such sales fully justified their enterprise.

The custom will bo continued by the firm. at the end of the first week in May, when the Academy private view will take place, with the sale of the fine collection of pictures and drawings formed by the late Sir Joseph Beecham, who purchased mainly under the advice of his friend the late Mr. T. S. Barratt. The hobby of picture buying came to Sir Joseph late in life, and 12 or 15 years ago he had few, if any, pictures of importance.

He did not possess, for instance Turner's superb "Walton Bridges," painted about 1810 for the Earl of Essex-this was sold in 1904 for £7,350, full £3,000 more than it fetched in the Essex sale in 1894. It was in 1905 that he bought Morland's " Morning: or the Benevolent Sportsman " (a work of 1792, engraved by J. Grozer and W. Nichols), in answer to a challenge. The picture was offered to him as the " finest Morland in existence," and he was told that if he purchased it and found within 12 months a better example of the artist's work, the money given for the "Morning" would be' returned with interest. Sir Joseph accepted these conditions, and. apparently failed in his quest.

A second Morland, "Boys Bathing," made £1,260 in 1906, and other features of the collection are Crome's "Woodland Scene " and. the various characteristic Constables, especially the rich-hued " On the Stour."' Among other members of the Norwich school represented are George Vincent. (with a "Greenwich Hospital"* of much beauty). James Stark and J. Nasmyth. A large picture of " Paris," dubiously. attributed. to . Bonington, Landseer's equestrian portrait of the " Hon. Ashley Ponsonby " and " Otter and Salmon," and James Holland's fine 'Rotterdam" also figure in the sale.

The water-colours are of high quality. The Turners include no drawing of the supreme beauty of the "Heidelberg," which realized £4,200-in 1908 '(beating the former "record " of £3,307 10s. obtained for the Earl of Dudley's "Bamborough" in 1872). But .there are at least two gems, tho exquisite *Dogana Venice," and the " Constance," which cost Sir Joseph Beecham £2,310 at the Tatham sale in 1908. The " Constance " belongs to a series of 10 drawings produced by Turner between 1842 and 1845. Ruskin, who purchased it for £88, says "The day I brought that drawing home to Denmark Hill was one of.the happiest of my life." He' classed the "Constance" with the "most finished and faultless works" of Turner's last period. From the Tatham sale also came Turner's "Windsor 'Castle," which brought £1,785,. and the: Holland collection supplied the "Hastings" (it made £1,800), and" Saltash" (1,102 10s.), Other Turners aro the "Worcester," "Folkestone" (which fetched £1,050 at the Nettlefold sale), "Ludlow Castle," and " Snowdrift on Mount Cenis." The 'prices paid for the Turner drawings in May will be of particular interest in view of the proposal to sell the Turner sketches in the National Gallery. Two more drawings remain to be noted - the "Fishmonger's Shop" and "Marlow Ferry" both by Fred Walker. In the Holland sale in 1908 they fetched £2,835 and £1,680 respectively." - The Times Feb. 12, 1917, p. 3

The Times, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1919 p. 16 - Turner Picture For Melbourne. TURNER PICTURE FOR,MELBOURNE. PURCHASE OF "WALTON BRIDGES". Turner's famous picture, "Walton Bridges," is going to Australia. The transfer has been arranged by Mr. Frank Rinder, Art Adviser in England to the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, which already contains three examples of the master's work.,The picture measures 35 by 48 inches, and was painted about 1810 for the Earl of Essex, in whose family it remained until 1893, when it realized 4,100 guineas at Christie's. For a time, it was in the collection of the late Mr. Janes Orrock, and at his sale in 1904 it fetched 7,000 guineas. The late Sir Joseph Beecham purchased the picture at a higher sum-about £10,000. For some unaccountable reason at the Beecham sale at Christie's in 1917 the price dropped to 3,500 guineas, at which it was purchased by Mr. W. Lawson Seacode, from whom it has now been acquired by the Melbourne authorities. Australia is to be congratulated on the acquisition of what is probably the most beautiful Turner which has been in the market for a long time."

Legacy

Is there a statue of him, a charity, a bequest, even a road or block of flats named after him?

See also

• Owners, lessees and managers of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden

References

Notes

Citations

Bibliography

• Baker, T. Thorne (1910). The Telegraphic Transmission of Photographs. London: Constable & Company.
• Barker, T.C.; Harris, J. R. (2012). A Merseyside Town in the Industrial Revolution: St Helens 1750-1900. Routledge. ISBN 9781136298660.
• Barratt, Thomas J. (1912). The Annals of Hampstead. London: A. and C. Black.
• Beecham, Thomas (1959) [1943]. A Mingled Chime. London: Hutchinson. OCLC 470511334.
• Blackwood, Alan (1994). Sir Thomas Beecham : The Man and the Music. London: Ebury Press. ISBN 0091784344.
• BMA (1909). Secret Remedies: what they cost and what they contain. British Medical Association. pp. x, 175.
• Boyce, Gordon (2012). The Growth and Dissolution of a Large-scale Business Enterprise: The Furness Interest 1892-1919. Research in Maritime History, 49. International Maritime Economic History Association. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780986497391. ISSN 1188-3928.
• Bulgaria of To-Day. London: Bulgarian Ministry of Commerce and Agriculture. 1907.
• Chamier, J. Daniel (1938). Percy Pitt of Covent Garden and the BBC. London: Edwin Arnold & Co.
• Chevrillon, André (1897). Romantic India. Translated by William Marchant. London: William Heinemann.
• Corley, T. A. B. (1987). "Interactions between the British and American Patent Medicine Industries 1708—1914". Business and Economic History. Papers presented at the thirty-third annual meeting of the Business History Conference (1987). 16. Cambridge University Press. JSTOR 23702630.
• Corley, T. A. B. (1988). Hausman, William J. (ed.). "Competition and the Growth of Advertising in the U.S. and Britain, 1800-1914". Business and Economic History. 17. Cambridge University. JSTOR 23702968.
• Corley, T.A.B. (1994). "The Beecham Group in the World's Pharmaceutical Industry 1914-70". Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte / Journal of Business History. 39 (H. 1.). Verlag C.H.Beck. JSTOR 40695463.
• Corley, T. A. B. (2004). "Beecham, Thomas (1820–1907)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/30669. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
• Corley, Tony (2010). "Beecham: a family firm 1859-1924". In Quirke, Viviane; Slinn, Judy (eds.). Perspectives on Twentieth-century Pharmaceuticals. Peter Lang. ISBN 9783039109203.
• Cragoe, Matthew; Readman, Paul, eds. (2010). "Introduction". The Land Question in Britain, 1750–1950. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230203402.
• Cumming, Robert (2015). My Dear BB: The Letters of Bernard Berenson and Kenneth Clark, 1925–1959. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300216066.
• Heslrige, Arthur G. M., ed. (1921). Debrett's Baronetage, Knightage, and Companionage.
• Hammerton, John Alexander, Sir, ed. (1916). "More Men Who Have Won Heroic Fame". The Second Winter Campaign 1915-16. The War Illustrated Album de luxe; the story of the great European war told by camera, pen and pencil, Vol. V. London: The Amalgamated Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Hanham, H. J. (March 1960). "The Sale of Honours in Late Victorian England". Victorian Studies. 3 (3). Indiana University Press. JSTOR 3825500.
• Jefferson, Alan (1979). A Centenary Tribute: Sir Thomas Beecham. London: World Records, by arrangement with Macdonald and Jane's Publishers. ISBN 035404205X.
• Johnston, Thomas (1934). Financiers and the Nation. London: Methuen and Co.
• Lucas, John (2008). Thomas Beecham: An Obsession with Music. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 9781843834021.
• Lundy, Darryl. "p. 13708 § 137080". The Peerage.
• Quinault, Roland (2010). "London and the Land Question, c. 1880–1914". In Cragoe, Matthew; Readman, Paul (eds.). The Land Question in Britain, 1750–1950. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230203402.
• Reid, Charles (1961). Thomas Beecham: An Independent Biography. London: Victor Gollancz. OCLC 500565141.
• Reynolds, Paige (Summer 2000). "'Chaos Invading Concept': Blast as a Native Theory of Promotional Culture". Twentieth Century Literature. 46 (2). Duke University Press. doi:10.2307/441959. JSTOR 441959.
• Rodmell, Paul (2016). Opera in the British Isles, 1875–1918. Music in Nineteenth-Century Britain. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781317085454.
• Simpson, A. W. B. (June 1985). "Quackery and Contract Law: The Case of the Carbolic Smoke Ball". The Journal of Legal Studies. 14 (2). The University of Chicago Press for The University of Chicago Law School: 381. JSTOR 724433.
• Suonpää, Mika (July 2008). British Perception of Balkan Slavs : Professional and Popular Categorisations before 1914 (D. Phil). University of Hull.
• Suonpää, Mika (March 2012). "Financial Speculation, Political Risks, and Legal Complications: British Commercial Diplomacy in the Balkans, c. 1906-1914". The Historical Journal. 55 (1). Cambridge University Press. JSTOR 41349647.
• Wilkins, Mira (1989). The History of Foreign Investment in the United States to 1914. Harvard Studies in Business History, Issue 41. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674396661.
• Yamey, B. S. (September 1952). "The Origins of Resale Price Maintenance: A Study of Three Branches of Retail Trade". The Economic Journal. 62 (247). doi:10.2307/2226898. JSTOR 2226898.
• Leigh Rayment's list of baronets

Category:English businesspeople Category:Businesspeople in the pharmaceutical industry Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom Category:1848 births Category:1916 deaths Category:Mayors of places in Merseyside