Houghton, Samuel (Recent research, April 2022)

SAMUEL HOUGHTON:  PROFILIST and PUPIL of JOHN MIERS 

 

Highly regarded by collectors, the work of SH closely parallels the benchmark of quality set by profilist John Miers (1758-1821). Indeed without trade labels to assist, attributing work to either man can be problematic (See Houghton, Samuel SCC Newsletter, August 2008). But even though their style is virtually indistinguishable, commentators’ opinions varied regarding the likelihood of Miers having schooled Houghton in the art.

 

The first apparent record of SH dates from the mid-1780s with a limited number of signed and sometimes dated jewellery pieces on ivory, mostly of children. It was known he married in Edinburgh in 1791 and, from information in 1792-97 Edinburgh directories, it was assumed he formed a partnership with his pupil George Bruce before he died in 1796. In January 1797, Bruce married Houghton’s widow after which it was known Bruce began trading under his own name.

 

HOWEVER, the content of a series of recently discovered Edinburgh newspaper advertisements makes a complete reappraisal of Houghton’s accepted working life, before and after his arrival north of the border, necessary.

 

SAMUEL HOUGHTON

Decd. by March 1793

 

Unfortunately, as no definitive records have so far come to light, speculations regarding Houghton’s origins are essentially pointless.

 

PARENTS/SIBLINGS

N/K

 

BIRTH/BIRTHPLACE

N/K

 

MARRIAGE

SH married Agnes Caitcheon on 25.08.1791 at St. Cuthbert’s Edinburgh, and again in Edinburgh 06.09.1791. His wife’s previous marriage in 1784 also records double ceremonies which accommodated denominational differences as Agnes’ brother Robert Hunter Caitcheon (1764-1833), a merchant navy captain and probably Agnes herself were Presbyterians, i.e., Nonconformists.

 

SPOUSE

Agnes Caitcheon (born 22.07.1764, Edinburgh - dec. N/K)

Agnes was the widow of Robert Moncrieff, a Glasgow apothecary and Baptist preacher. They married 31.10.1784 in Glasgow and again two days later in Edinburgh. The date of his death has not been discovered.

 

Agnes was the third of eight children born to John Caitcheon and Helen Gordon. John (fl. 1758-1807) was an Edinburgh Carver, Gilder, maker of Picture Frames and Architectural Ornament. 'By right of his wife' he was made a Burgess (freeman) and Guild brother in July 1763.

 

According to the Dictionary of British and Irish Furniture Makers 1500-1914, he is recorded at Blair Castle in 1758 gilding then supplying frames for Lord Glenorchy and carved work for Hay of Drummelier in 1770. In a CALEDONIAN MERCURY 08.06. 1768 advertisement he offers a wide range of architectural ornamentation.

 

He is listed in several Directories, the last of which, the Edinburgh Directory 1794-95, places him in Caitcheon’s Court at the 'foot of Fleshmarket Close', which is near Houghton and Bruce’s address on South Bridge St. The Dictionary of British and Irish Furniture Makers last records him taking on an apprentice in May 1807 when he would have been about 70 years old. Whether Miers, Houghton or Bruce purchased frames from him is speculative.

 

CAREER

(fl. ca 1783-1792)

 

AS MIERS'  PUPIL

(ca. 1783 – May 1791)

 

The following insightful advertisements were placed in the CALEDONIAN MERCURY between July 1791 and October 1795. The first remains Houghton’s only known newspaper advertisement; the others were placed by his former pupil George Bruce.

 

 

 

Here is confirmation that Houghton was a pupil and 'Long a Pupil' of Miers. Prior to this discovery, authors assumed profiles painted between 1781-91 were Miers’ preserve alone but the advertisement now suggests an undetermined percentage of Miers’ works were executed by Samuel Houghton. So how long was Houghton employed by Miers?

 

Miers first offered profiles in his hometown of Leeds in early 1781 before travelling to various northern towns honing his craft.  In the NEWCASTLE CHRONICLE - 02.08. 1783, he offers lessons to Ladies and Gentlemen where they might '… though they never before made use of a pencil … perform some very capital pieces such as … portraits, groups of figures &c …'. Perhaps at some early point Miers’ course of lessons were the way the two men first became acquainted.

 

Also in August 1783, Miers added jewellery work on ivory to his options and, as Houghton’s earliest known silhouettes were jewellery pieces on ivory, it’s possible he became Miers’ pupil about this time. In 2020 a locket painted on ivory in typical Miers style was discovered, when cleaned, to bear Houghton’s signature on its reverse.

 

However, it should be pointed out that, if Houghton’s mid-1780’s obverse signed and dated profiles on ivory were created in Miers’ studio, he would have been the sole employee allowed to use his own signature on a Miers’ studio work of any description at any time.

 

By November 1784, Miers claimed to have painted 3,000 likenesses in Leeds alone and '... an immense number elsewhere'. Even allowing for hyperbole, demand was high, would continue to rise and require, as is now known, an assistant of talent to help with commissions.

 

Between October 1786 and August 1788 Miers settled his family and business in Edinburgh. The length of his stay was indicative of his success and seeded the resolve to establish himself in London which, after a short stay in Newcastle and Leeds, he reached in the winter of 1788. Assessing the timing of events between May and July 1791, it’s probable Houghton accompanied him.

 

Houghton’s July 1791 advertisement boldly printed  ‘S. HOUGHTON from LONDON’' and ‘from London’ surely meant from Miers’ first London address, 162 Strand. Certainly, no record of Houghton working independently in the Capital has come to light.

 

MAY 1791 - Miers moved to his second address, 111 Strand, the same month as a less faithful copyist of the Miers style appears at work in his studio.**

 

2 JULY 1791 - Houghton ‘ …from London..’ places his advertisement in the CALEDONIAN MERCURY.

The timings are highly suggestive.

 

**In British Silhouette Artists 1760-1860 (1978) McKechnie states that from May 1791 “the hand of an unidentified artist” could be discerned working from Miers’ second address. The still unknown “hand” was sufficiently distinguishable from Miers’ (and Houghton’s) for McKechnie to label it 'X Work'. So 'X' would appear to have filled the void left by Houghton’s departure.

 

 

HOUGHTON in EDINBURGH

(fl. July 1791 - July 1792)

 

Whatever circumstance caused Houghton’s departure 'from London' he would, as Miers’ employee, have been well aware of financial opportunities for a resident profilist of quality in Scotland’s capital.

 

It’s also credible that Houghton’s marriage in August, barely a month after placing his advertisement, suggests an earlier acquaintance with his spouse and by extension the city.

 

Lending weight to the theory is the fact that Miers displayed samples of his work at 'Mr Moncrieff's' an Apothecary of Bridge St. Houghton’s wife had formerly been married to Apothecary Robert Moncrieff.

 

The July advertisement was well placed to attract 'Fashionables' drawn to Edinburgh’s week-long Race Meeting at the end of the month. In a short time, he must have made a memorable mark, as 14 years after his death a George Bruce advertisement referenced that he '... was SOLE PUPIL … to the CELEBRATED Mr. HOUGHTON'.

 

Bust length portrait of a man facing right by Houghton.  Private Collection

 

Houghton's trade label.  Private Collection

 

Bust length portrait of a woman facing left by Houghton.  Private Collection

 

The scarcity of Houghton’s works has long been commented on but the following abbreviated advertisements placed by George Bruce between July 1792 and March 1793 provide the answer.

 

 

CALEDONIAN MERCURY - 30 March/28 May/8 July 1793:

The full wording of the advertisement is essentially the same with Bruce again applying for an apprentice. The telling difference though is mention of '... the LATE Mr. HOUGHTON'.

 

SUMMARY

So, within a year of Houghton’s arrival and marriage a condition, possibly a stroke, had incapacitated him severely enough for Bruce to assume ALL aspects of the business and, whatever its nature, the malady had likely led to Houghton’s death by March 1793. Mention is also made of “Mr. Houghton’s Family”, which might suggest he arrived in Edinburgh with kin or his wife had given birth. Either way no evidence has been found.

 

 

HOUGHTON & BRUCE

(partnership fl. 1792-97)

 

The partnership is recorded in 1793-97 EDINBURGH and LEITH POST OFFICE DIRECTORIES and on a scarce trade label. For inclusion in the 1793-4 Directory the partnership, as indicated by the above advertisements, would have been established the previous year. Given the date of Houghton’s demise, the abbreviated wording in a brace of newspaper advertisements placed by Bruce in 1794/95 is interesting …

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY

Though Houghton had died by March 1793, the reverse would seem to be indicated to potential clients!  Obviously, George Bruce and Houghton’s widow decided the celebrity of Houghton’s name would continue drawing custom. Given these facts, any Houghton work bearing a Houghton & Bruce trade label must now be considered either a duplicate or a work painted by Bruce in Houghton’s style which, to judge by his early extant work, Bruce was capable of producing.

 

This supposition is augmented by a CALEDONIAN MERCURY - 23.06.1804. advertisement where Bruce mentions he had 'retained all his own original Sketches, as also those of his predecessor, Mr. HOUGHTON, so that the Ladies and Gentlemen who have sat to either, may have any number of copies ...'.

 

The partnership terminated in January 1797 when, after marrying Houghton’s widow, Bruce assumed control of the business and began trading under his own name. Like Houghton, Bruce’s origins have resisted research. The 1841 Census lists his age as 60, which would have made him a startlingly precocious 11-year-old in 1792! More realistically, he was up to ten years older.

 

DEATH

Samuel Houghton died sometime between July 1792 and March 1793; however, no obituary/burial registration has come to light in either Scotland or England.

 

A CORRECTION

4  BRUNSWICK STREET written in pencil on the Trade Label of a profile of General (Banastre) Tarlton (1754-1833) was suggested by McKechnie and others as potentially being Houghton’s home address. 

 

Research, however, discovered Brunswick St. to be in Edinburgh’s ‘EASTERN NEW TOWN’ the plans of which were not laid out until September 1819, more than 25 years after Houghton’s death. A more probable location for the profile’s ‘Brunswick St.’ was Liverpool, a city where Tarlton’s family, merchants, ship owners, slave traders, were long established. Tarlton himself was elected Liverpool’s MP in 1790 and promoted Major General in 1794 . 

 

© Brian Wellings 2022