View source for William Chinnery


==Background==

William Chinnery was a Treasury official who was appointed as the 'Agent for the Intended Settlement at New South Wales' on 7 May 1787. This post was created for the purpose of distributing certain moneys in the settlement, in particular the payment of the salary of civil officers.

Chinnery and his wife lived an extravagant lifestyle, which included a menage a trois with a popular Italian musician, Giovanni Viotti. In 1812, it was revealed that Chinnery had been defrauding the Treasury, and he fled to the Continent.

- Gary L. Sturgess, 16 March 2016

==Biography==

3 March 1766 – William Bassett Chinnery was born in London, the son of William Chinnery and Elizabeth (Bassett) of Gough Square. 

6 April 1766 – Baptised at St Bride’s, Fleet Street. (St Bride Fleet Street, Register of baptisms, 1736 - 1812, LMA P69/BRI/A/007/MS06541, Item 001)

His youngest brother was George Chinnery, a well-known artist. 

William Chinnery was of small stature. (Denise Yim, 'Viotti and the Chinnerys', Farnham: Ashgate, 2004, p.9) 

21 October 1790 – William Bassett Chinnery, Esq. of St Bride’s and ‘of the Treasury’, married Miss Margaret Tresilian of Sloane Street, at St Luke’s in Chelsea. (Saint Luke, Chelsea, Register of marriages, LMA P74/LUK, Item 200; London Chronicle, 21-23 October 1790)

3 September 1791 – George Robert and Caroline Chinnery were born.

Late 1792 – The Chinnerys seem to have met Viotti soon after his arrival in London.

23 April 1793 – Walter Grenfell Chinnery was born.

19 November 1802 – Walter died unexpectedly. (Yim, p.119)

3 April 1812 – Caroline Chinnery, his only daughter, died aged 23. (Morning Chronicle, 4 April 1812) She died on the day after her father fled the country. It was probably tuberculosis. (Yim, p.161)

April 1812 – George Chinnery Junior was appointed as a clerk in the Treasury. (Morning Chronicle, 13 April 1812) This was organised by the Duke of Cumberland.

3 March 1827 – William Chinnery died in Paris and was buried in the Père Lachaise cemetery. 

==Treasury Official==

25 February 1783 – Chinnery was appointed to the Treasury by George Rose, on the recommendation of Lord Thurlow. At some point, Rose stood as godfather to Rose’s son. (Jackson’s Oxford Journal, 28 March 1812; http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=16752) Chinnery started on a salary of £100. (Scorgie, p.77)

Thurlow was the Lord Chancellor and was close to the King. He was dismissed in 1792 and in 1797, was part of a plot to remove the Pitt government and install Moira as Prime Minister. Thurlow was a patron to Chinnery’s father who had had his (illegitimate) daughters educated by William Chinnery Senior who was an accomplished writing master. Young Chinnery had originally worked for Thurlow, before he found him a job in the Treasury. (Michael E. Scorgie, ‘The Rise and Fall of William Chinnery’, Abacus, (2007), Vol.43, No.1, pp.76-93 at pp.76-77)

Rose wrote in his diary that he had appointed Chinnery by way of personal patronage, and explained the circumstances:

"The fifth he gave to me, and I appointed Mr. Chinnery, a sort of secretary to Lord Thurlow, the Chancellor, who was likely to be turned adrift on his lordship going out of office, with little hope of receiving support from his father, who was a writing-master." (Leveson Vernon Harcourt, The Diaries and Correspondence of the Right Hon. George Rose, London: Richard Bentley, 1860, Vol.1, p.29)

Rose later said that in the 1780s, Chinnery had been ‘very ingenious, and at the same time attentive to his duty’. (Scorgie, p.90) 

21 October 1790 – William Chinnery, Esq. described as ‘of the Treasury’, married Miss Tresilian of Sloane Street. (London Chronicle, 21-23 October 1790)

An article in the press described his role as follows: ‘whose office it was to issue money from the Treasury’. (Morning Post, 2 February 1811)

August 1792 – Chinnery was appointed Receiver of Fees of Suppressed Offices. (Scorgie, p.80)

29 August 1792 – Letter from William Chinnery, Junior Clerk at the Treasury, to Evan Nepean, from Littlehampton, Sussex, a seaside resort where he was taking a holiday. He extolls the virtues of the resort and asks Nepean to attend to the enclosed matter in the absence of George Rose. The enclosed is a letter of 28 August from Thomas Williams, MP for Great Marlow, seeking his help in obtaining a justices' licence for James Pierce, an unsuccessful baker, to sell wine and spirits in the parish of St Martin-in-the-Fields. (TNA HO42/21)

25 December 1793 – Chinnery was senior enough to be mentioned in correspondence from Pitt to Rose, advising that he had not received papers from him. (Harcourt, Vol.1, p.29)

January 1794 – Appointed Agent of the Bahamas Islands with an additional salary of £150 a year. (Scorgie, p.81)
1797 – In the Royal Kalendar, Chinnery was listed amongst the ‘Other Clerks on the Establishment’, one of sixteen, with four Chief Clerks. (The Royal Kalendar and Court and City Register, 1797, under ‘Officers of the Treasury’)

July 1798 – Chinnery was promoted to Senior Clerk. (Scorgie, p.82)

c. December 1798 – Margaret Chinnery to William congratulating him on his promotion to chief clerk. (Yim, p.105)

January 1799 – Chinnery was formally promoted to Chief Clerk. This meant he had a general advisory role to the Treasury Board. (Scorgie, p.82)

1801 – Chinnery was listed as one of the chief clerks in the Treasury, along with Thomas Cotton, William Mitford and G.E. Ramus. They were paid a salary of £1,080 each. (The Court and City Register, p.218)

1810 – Chinnery’s assistant clerk, a Mr Powell, died. He had been nearly 20 years in the Treasury. (Gentleman’s Magazine, Vol.108, p.191)

His salary toward the end of his time at the Treasury was apparently £4,000 a year.

23 March 1812 – Earl Grosvenor raised the Chinnery defalcation, without mentioned him by name. He did say that he was a protégé of George Rose and that Rose should have noticed. He referred to Chinnery as the ‘First Clerk’ to the Treasury. (Scorgie, p.89; House of Lords Hansard, First Series, Vol.22, cc.106-107)

25 March 1812 – Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Commons about Chinnery’s defalcation. 

"Mr. Rose said, he had introduced Mr. Chinnery in 1783, who had been private secretary to the then lord chancellor, Lord Thurlow. Mr. Chinnery was strongly recommended by the lord chancellor, and in consequence he (Mr. Rose) took an opportunity of naming him to a situation. He understood, about nine months after he had done so, that Mr. Chinnery acquitted himself in a very satisfactory manner, and that he was very ingenious, and at the same time attentive to his duty. For four or five years Mr. Chinnery appeared to go on very well, but after that time he got into an extravagant way of living, which he (Mr. Rose) thought ill became his situation. He remonstrated with him on the subject. Mr. Chinnery, from the two agencies with which he was entrusted, and the accounts of the Treasury, which he had to manage, was in the habit of receiving not less than 4,000l. per year. The produce of one quarter was usually given into his hands at once, which was about 1,000l. and the security of Mr. Chinnery was 3,000l. On his remonstrating with Mr. Chinnery on the extravagant way of life he had got into, he replied that he was enabled to do so by the support which he drew from other funds than those with which he (Mr. R.) was acquainted. The right hon. gentleman said, that he had never known what those funds were, nor that any such were in existence. From the situation in which Mr. Chinnery had been, he had certainly no reason to think him in possession of any thing of that kind. When he (Mr. R) was in the Treasury, 14 or 15 years ago, Mr. Chinnery, in consequence of a remonstrance, assured him that the world were much mistaken in his circumstances, as he had other resources than he was generally known to possess. From that period, he (Mr. R.) had ceased to speak to him frequently, and had indeed very seldom spoke to him since. About a year and a half ago, he saw Mr. Chinnery was still going on in the same extravagant manner. On this occasion he wrote to him a letter, in which he told him, "that nothing could be more scandalous than the style in which he lived. That he (Mr. R.) was certain that he could have no honest [194] fund capable of supporting such expences, and that though it was nothing to the world how persons lived who were differently situated, yet in the situation of Mr. Chinnery such a course must appear reprehensible to all. He farther told him, that he had always observed, that when a man greatly exceeded his income, there was but little security for his honour, and that feeling this, he should communicate his thoughts on the subject to his right hon. friend." – He thought there was no excuse for Mr. Chinnery, as he had been living in a shamefully extravagant manner for 14 or 15 years. Mr. Chinnery had been in the habit of giving concerts, which were attended by performers of the first celebrity. When he spoke to him on this subject, he was answered, by Mr. Chinnery, that they were friends of his, and that these musicians would receive no pay, and consequently the charge of his concerts was but trifling. He knew persons of great consideration who were in the habit of attending these concerts, but he had never gone to one, lest he should seem to give his sanction to such doings. The only time he was ever in Mr. Chinnery's house was, when he went to stand god-father to that young man, with whose name the public were familiar (Mr. Chinnery, jun.) When a Bill was brought in two years ago by the hon. baronet opposite, he had endeavoured-to frame it to meet cases like the present, and he thought at that time that if he could be aid hold of, 

"Mr. Chinnery might be the first affected by that Bill. He was not aware that this subject would be touched upon, or he would have brought the correspondence which had taken place on the subject with him, to shew how anxious he had been to induce Mr. Chinnery to change his conduct, not only within the last one or two years, but for the last 14 or 15 years." (House of Commons Hansard, First Series, Vol.22, cc.193-194)

1812 – A newspaper report relating to his fraud described his role as follows:

"Mr Chinnery, a Chief Clerk of Treasury, is the person against whose estate an extent has been issued. Besides a very considerable income from the Treasury, he was in possession of some lucrative agencies. The amount of his deficiencies is variously stated; generally at about £70,000. His accounts, it is said, had not been examined for several years. The property obtained by the extent is represented to be about £30,000. It is not correct, we understand, that he was a sufferer by any speculations or transactions with the late Mr Goldsmid. Mr Chinnery was at the Treasury in the morning of the day on which he first heard of the steps taken by Government; in consequence of which he immediately disappeared." (Caledonian Mercury, 26 March 1812) 
 
==Agent for New South Wales==

7 May 1787 – William Chinnery provided securities for his appointment as Agent for the Intended Settlement in New South Wales – John Fenwick of Milbank Street, Westminster, and Alexander Davison of Chapels Stairs, Lincoln Inn. (TNA ADM54/45/13) 

11 May 1787 – George Rose to the Treasury Board enclosing details of William Chinnery’s security for his role as Agent for the Intended Settlement in NSW - £1,000 from himself; £1,000 from John Fenwick of Millbank St., and £1,000 from Alexander Davison. (These securities were subsequently found to be adequate, and directions given for the bonds to be taken. (TNA T54/45/13)

1799 – A sum not exceeding £9,760.13.10 was granted to his Majesty to make good the like sum issued to William Chinnery, Esq. at the receipt of the Exchequer, out of the Civil List to pay bills drawn from NSW which became due in 1799, being the excess of the sum granted for that purpose. (Star, 1 April 1799)

1800 – A sum of £694 was granted to his Majesty for Mr Chinnery for copper coin sent to NSW. (Whitehall Evening Post, 17-19 July 1800)

And a sum of £697.7.0 to Chinnery to defray charges associated with NSW. (True Briton, 19 July 1800)

==Agent for the Bahamas==

April 1794 – Chinnery was appointed as Agent for the Bahamas. (Lloyd’s Evening Post, 16-18 April 1794)

==Other Public Roles==

15 June 1792 – Chinnery was paid £15,592.13.0 and another £705.9.0 in fees to pay sundry certificates granted by Richard Bulkeley, president of the Council of Nova Scotia, for expenses attending the transportation of blacks from that province to Sierra Leone. (Journal of the House of Commons, Vol.48, p.333) 

1795 – Money was issued to him to pay fees on escheats and forfeitures in Nova Scotia, and to pay certain proprietors in St. Domingo. (Whitehall Evening Post, 17-19 February 1795)

1797 – He seems to have had some role in the payment of money associated with suppressed offices. (Oracle and Public Advertiser, 20 March 1797)

1807 – £974 to make compensation to persons employed to attend Lord Melville’s trial. (Morning Chronicle, 21 March 1807)

1808 – £166.17.6 for a bill drawn on Chinnery from St Vincent’s. (Jackson’s Oxford Journal, 9 April 1808)

1809 – Payments were made through Chinnery to the Chevalier de Souza for the relief of families who had emigrated from Portugal. (Morning Post, 29 April 1809)

==Social Life==

By 1792 – The Chinnerys were already part of the London society through their musical connections. Yim thinks they already knew Adolphus Frederick, the future Duke of Cambridge, and Johann Peter Salomon, a German immigrant violinist who had brought Haydn to London in 1791 and commissioned him to compose new works. (Yim, pp.37, 38)

1792 – Yim argues that the Chinnerys met Viotti soon after his arrival in London in late 1792. (Yim, p.38)

8 June 1793 – In a letter to the Chinnerys, Viotti mentions his first visit to Gilwell Park. He says that whenever he is absent from the Chinnerys, he is miserable. (Yim, p.46)

21 July 1793 – After spending a month at Gillwell Park, Viotti departed for Dover. (Yim, p.48)

3 August 1793 – In a letter from Frankfurt, Viotti concludes with fond wishes for the children (George and Caroline were not quite two years old) and baby Walter. He sends greetings to a Chinnery friend, Mr Grenfell. (Yim, p.50)  

February 1794 – On his return to London, Viotti lived in a house at 34 Wells Street, Oxford Street, that William Chinnery had taken for him. It was just across the road from the Chinnerys house in Mortimer Street. (Yim, p.61)

1794 – The Chinnerys seem to have commenced their regular musical parties in their London home. Viotti was the key to the success of these events – Margaret played the piano and William the cello. (Yim, p.86) In his biography of William Spencer, James Cochrane wrote:

"At the house of his friend Mrs C______y, whom he frequently visited in London, and at Gilwell, Mr Spencer’s taste for music was amply gratified. This lady’s repute as a first-rate performer on the piano-forte was very high; and her house was the resort of all those most distinguished for their skill in music. Her daughter, in whom she cultivated this and every other talent, seems to have united in a singular degree, beauty, learning, and accomplishments. . . Every foreigner of eminence in the musical profession was anxious, on his arrival in London, to be introduced to Mrs C_______y; so that those who were really fond of music were sure to find it in perfection in her house. There Mr Spencer met Viotti, the first violin player of his day, a very fine composer, and a man of abilities independently of his particular art." (quoted, Yim, pp.86-87)

These were held weekly on a Wednesday and it is clear from the letters that Viotti helped Margaret organise them. (Yim, p.87) Throughout this period, sonatas were dedicated to members of the Chinnery family by some of these composers. (Yim, p.88) 

1795 – While not yet living at their home, it is evident that Viotti was spending a great deal of time at their home. (Yim, p.82)

Mid-1795 – The musical evenings were moved to a Sunday. (Yim, p.89)

Autumn 1796 – The Chinnery family moved to Gillwell House, which was 12 miles and a two-and-a-half-hour carriage ride from London. William and Viotti divided their time between London during the week and Gillwell House at weekends. (Yim, p.92)

Early 1797 – William was working on the Budget at the Treasury and was having trouble getting away. (Yim, p.93)

1 March 1797 – Margaret wrote to William about her relocation to London with the children for the concert season. (Yim, p.93)

30 July 1797 – George Macaulay wrote in his diary:

"From thence to Gillwell Hall, the seat of Mr. Chinnery, where we dined exceedingly well indeed with a Company of 14. The House good, the situation charming, and altogether the residence of a gentleman. Mr Chinnery’s Father was writing-master to the children of Mr. Rose, and by him taken a few years since into his office in the Treasury as a clerk, and never in his life, I shou’d think, had a salary of more than £300 per ann. How is it possible with a Man in income so limited, in so short a space of Time to be enabled to purchase an Estate, - build a good House, live well, keep Carriages, Family &c. and support an establishment @ £2000 a year? Why, by profiting of the Intelligence which his official situation occasionally throws in his way, and gambling in the Funds. It is impossible to be done in any other manner, or by any other means." (W.C. Mackenzie (ed.), The War Diary of a London Scot (Alderman G.M. Macaulay) 1796-7, Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1916, p.192)

March 1798 – Viotti was ordered by government to leave the country, under suspicion of harbouring Jacobin sympathies. Chinnery later stated that George Rose was hostile to Viotti, but Charles Long had supported him in defending Viotti. (Yim, pp.98, 100) 

August 1802 – During the Peace of Amiens, the whole family, and Viotti, spent two and a half months in Paris. They stayed at the Hotel de l’Empire where they organised private music concerts. Walter died unexpectedly on 19 November, shortly after their return. (Yim, p.107, 119)

3 March 1803 – Viotti composed ‘Per il giorno natalizio del caro Padre Chinnery’ for William’s birthday. (Yim, pp.127-128)
Yim provides a broad outline of the attendees at the concerts at Gillwell:

• Family friends – William Spencer (part of the Whig set), Colonel Henry Francis Grenfell and family.
• Amateur musicians from London society, such as Miss Sophia Johnstone, an intimate of the Prince of Wales.
• Literary guests such as the poet William Sotheby. William Spencer was also a poet.
• Foreign diplomats.
• Visiting musicians.

May-June 1810 – Caroline made her formal debut into London society at the house in Stratford Place that the Chinnerys had taken for the season. The guest list of 40-50 persons included the Duke of Cambridge; Spencer’s relatives, the Duchess of Devonshire, Lady Bessborough and Lady Shaftesbury; Lord Erskine; Lord Crewe; Sir Sidney and Lady Smith; Lord and Lady Granville Leveson-Gower; Lord and Lady Leitrim; the writer George Lamb. (Yim, p.149)

19 June 1811 – The Chinnerys attended a lavish fete held by the Prince Regent, and stayed until six o’clock in the morning. (Yim, p.153)

13 September 1811 – While making snide remarks about William’s low birth, Lord Glenbervie wrote in his journal:

"Mr and Mrs Chinnery are, in the Society of London, in some respects, the rivals of Mr and Miss Johnstone, whose splendid dinners and walzing balls we partook of at Brighton.  . . But the Chinnery parties seem to me more select and more exquisite than those of Hanover Square. . .

". . . Viotti has lived in Chinnery’s house, I believe, ever since the birth of the daughter – scandal might perhaps insinuate that his residence there is of a little earlier date, but I do not believe that exact chronology would justify this." (Yim, p.156) 

October-November 1811 – The Chinnerys often visited the Pavilion at Brighton with Viotti, regularly dining with the Prince. (Yim, pp.158-9)

16 March 1812 – William was dismissed from the Treasury. (Yim, p.161)

Following William’s downfall and flight, the Duke of Cumberland approached Viotti about finding a place for young George. The appointment to Treasury appears to have been organised through the Prime Minister. (Yim, pp.161-2, 166)

George continued to mingle in society with Viotti, but for the next couple of years, Margaret kept a low profile. From 1814, she began to entertain at her home in Charles Street, and by 1815, these events were attended by the cream of London society. 

In 1816, Margaret was complaining of the accommodation in Charles Street, and the following year she bought a larger house at 17 Montagu Street, Portman Square, a district frequented by French émigrés and wealthy diplomats. From here she was able to properly launch her re-entry into London society. (Yim, pp.203-204)

May 1818 – The Duke of Cambridge visited Margaret and Viotti at the Montagu Street house. (Yim, p.208)

==Fraud and Flight== 

1795 – Questions were first raised by auditors concerning the management of the balances in Chinnery’s hands. (Scorgie, p.81)

By 1797, Chinnery’s wealth was already a matter of comment in the City and it was generally understood how he had acquired his fortune so quickly, as the following passage demonstrates:

30 July 1797 – George Macaulay wrote in his diary:

"From thence to Gillwell Hall, the seat of Mr. Chinnery, where we dined exceedingly well indeed with a Company of 14. The House good, the situation charming, and altogether the residence of a gentleman. Mr Chinnery’s Father was writing-master to the children of Mr. Rose, and by him taken a few years since into his office in the Treasury as a clerk, and never in his life, I shou’d think, had a salary of more than £300 per ann. How is it possible with a Man in income so limited, in so short a space of Time to be enabled to purchase an Estate, - build a good House, live well, keep Carriages, Family &c. and support an establishment @ £2000 a year? Why, by profiting of the Intelligence which his official situation occasionally throws in his way, and gambling in the Funds. It is impossible to be done in any other manner, or by any other means." (W.C. Mackenzie (ed.), The War Diary of a London Scot (Alderman G.M. Macaulay) 1796-7, Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1916, p.192)

1805-06 – The Audit Office again raised major concerns about Chinnery’s management. (Scorgie, p.83)

1807 – Internal Treasury Auditors started focusing on Chinnery. (Scorgie, p.83)

September 1810 – By this date, Rose seems to have questioned Chinnery’s spending. Spencer Percival interviewed him and came away satisfied. There had been some auditing and Percival tightened the system of control. (Denis Gray, Spencer Percival: The Evangelical Prime Minister, 1762-1812, p.318)

February 1811 – The fraud seems to have broken around this time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked about the existence of warrants for the issue of public money, signed by His Majesty, purporting to bear dates in October 1810 when His Majesty’s illness commenced and any use of the royal signature was improper and illegal.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that he was aware of one warrant. Warrants were sent down to His Majesty in blank and then being returned to the Treasury were filled out with the date and transmitted to the Exchequer for payment. He understood that the complaint originated in this practice. The warrants in question were intended for the issue of very small sums by Mr Chinnery from his department, and were not intended for the authorised of large sums. (Caledonian Mercury, 4 February 1811)

16 March 1812 – Chinnery was dismissed from his post. (Yim, p.161)

25 March 1812 – Chinnery’s disappearance was raised in parliament.

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had been grossly imposed upon by the person alluded to [Chinnery]. From the situation of the accounts of the Treasury previously to the last three years, it was quite impossible to discover the defalcation in Mr Chinnery’s account; but lately a system of audit had been introduced under his own direction, which made it equally impossible for a defaulter to escape detection. Great neglect had been suffered in that department for a very long time.

"Mr Rose was glad to explain his connection with the person in question. Mr Chinnery was recommended to him by Lord Thurlow, and he in 1783 took him under his protection. For the first four or five years he behaved himself extremely well; but when he married he launched into a system of considerable expense; and when applied to for a reason for this extravagance, he always replied that he had a property equal to his expenses. He (Mr Rose) never visited him for the past 15 years, except to stand godfather for a child. He thought the conduct of Mr Chinnery scandalous in the extreme, and admitted of no exculpation." (Jackson’s Oxford Journal, 28 March 1812)

Other reports say that Rose quit the Treasury in 1801 and had no further dealings with Chinnery after that time. About a year and a half ago, he had drawn the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury to Mr Chinnery’s behaviour. He ‘was then living in a scandalous way, inconsistent with any honest means.’ He had only once set foot in his house, to act as godfather to his son, although he had been invited to splendid concerts ‘attended by many persons of distinction’. When asked how he could afford to give such entertainments, he always replied that they performed at no cost. (Caledonian Mercury, 30 March 1812)

The press were not impressed with Rose’s defence, wondering why he had not taken firm action to audit Chinnery’s accounts if he was so concerned. (The Examiner, 14 June 1812)

March 1812 – A newspaper report relating to his fraud described his role as follows:

"Mr Chinnery, a Chief Clerk of Treasury, is the person against whose estate an extent has been issued. Besides a very considerable income from the Treasury, he was in possession of some lucrative agencies. The amount of his deficiencies is variously stated; generally at about £70,000. His accounts, it is said, had not been examined for several years. The property obtained by the extent is represented to be about £30,000. It is not correct, we understand, that he was a sufferer by any speculations or transactions with the late Mr Goldsmid. Mr Chinnery was at the Treasury in the morning of the day on which he first heard of the steps taken by Government; in consequence of which he immediately disappeared." (Caledonian Mercury, 26 March 1812) 

2 April 1812 – He boarded the packet for Gothenberg. (Yim, p.161)

3 April 1812 – Caroline died, probably of tuberculosis. (Yim, p.161)

Around this time, the Duke of Cumberland approached Viotti through his aide-de-camp, offering to find a place for young George. (Yim, pp.161-162) 

10 July 1812 – The Public Accounts Committee submitted its report on balances and defaulters, with a section on Chinnery. (‘Twelfth report from the Committee on the Public Expenditure, &c. of the United Kingdom. Balances, and Defaulters’, House of Commons Papers, 1812 (339).)
Early August 1812 – Viotti attended a fete at the Hanover Square home of their friends, Sophia Johnstone. The Prince Regent was there and he inquired after the Chinnery family. 

Coming back into the music room Viotti is stopped by the prince who, having recognized George, enquires solicitously after Mrs Chinnery, sympathizes with her, remembers Caroline’s playing at Brighton the previous autumn, wants to know where William Chinnery is, and remarks on prime minster Perceval’s kindness in finding George a situation in the Treasury. (Yim, pp.165-166)

Early August 1812 – Chinnery’s landau, seized by the Crown, was to be auctioned. (Morning Chronicle, 6 August 1812)

March 1813 – A valuable leasehold estate in Charles Street, Covent Garden, escheated to the Crown, was to be auctioned. (Morning Chronicle, 30 March 1813)

8 April 1813 – Gillwell Park, his estate in Essex, was sold by government. Viotti attended on behalf of the family. Margaret had petitioned the Crown to avoid the sale but without success. (Yim, p.163)

11 May 1813 – A further report from the Public Accounts Committee. (‘Account of Proceedings in respect of Mr. Chinnery's Balances, subsequent to Report of Committee of Public Expenditure in 1812’, House of Commons Papers, 1813 (182).)

See TNA T1/3535, Bundle 115, for Treasury’s attempts to identify his property. TNA TS11/362 are the Treasury Solicitor’s papers in the case.

£27,000 was recovered, with around £60,000 written off – a total of more than £87,000. (Scorgie, p.91) 

Throughout 1812 and 1813, Margaret stayed away from London society, and from 1814, she began to entertain in the privacy of her home. (Yim, p.169)

==Exile==

1812 – William’s initial move was to Gothenburg, where he remained until the restoration of Louis XVIII to the throne. He moved to Calais in 1814. (Yim, p.172)

August-October 1814 – Margaret, George and Viotti stayed at the nearby town of St Omer. This was their first reunion since he had fled. (Yim, p.172) 

December 1814 – Chinnery was living near Calais and speaking of coming back to England:

"Mr Chinnery

"This peculating Gentleman has been living on the Continent ever since his disgraceful conduct in this country, as first of the Clerks of the Treasury, in a state of unblushing splendour and indifference, and is at this period residing within a few miles of Calais, where his wife (a most accomplished woman) and his son, (an amiable young Gentleman) has lately visited him. Mr Chinnery talks with the utmost degree of composure of returning shortly to this country; and in that case he expected to be received with open arms by all his former friends – in short, as if nothing had happened beyond the ordinary course of the times in which we live. Certainly, it must be allowed that the times are pregnant with defaulters and peculators in high and official situations; but as the frequency with which this species of crime (and one of a more heinous nature can hardly be conceived) occurs, offers no justification for its commission, it is to be hoped that decorum will so far predominate in society as never to admit within its pale the individual who has been found guilty of so public an aggression as that which constitutes peculation! The laws of this country are peremptory in the case of an individual who steals to the amount of 40s. for that comparatively trifling offence (and trifling it must appear when balanced with public thefts, to the amount of 40, or 50, or 100,000£) a man is sentenced to be executed; but in the case of a public officer making away with hundreds of thousands in an official department over which he presides, and the property in which he is peculiarly bound to watch over and protect, he is merely made to refund the money which he has embezzled and appropriated to his own use (and how often has it happened, that Government have been unable to recover any part of the public money so stolen); and under those circumstances the delinquent is not only free from imprisonment, but is sometimes even again received into that society from which his disgraceful conduct so justly and deservedly expelled him!!! The English code of laws is surely very defective in this particular, that it presents so striking a distinction between the punishment of a man who robs to the amount of 40s. and an individual who appropriates to his own use the public money, to the value of many thousands! Should not some steps be taken to remedy this extraordinary and unjust distinction – as much with the view to bring to condign punishment the public robber, as to put the two species of offences in a scale of comparative justice, in relation to their correction? A man who steals to the amount of forty shillings (which the law has pronounced to be a capital crime) is, generally speaking, of low origin and education, and in distressed circumstances, and on that account his offence is somewhat palliated, though still unjustifiable – on the other hand, the public robber of his country, placed in an high official situation under Government, is always a man of good education, and respectable connections, and his salary is adequate to supply him  with not only every comfort but even luxury in life; he therefore cannot plead poverty (for if he is poor, it must be the effect of his own wanton extravagance), or a want of education in extenuation of his crime!!! Why therefore should the poor uneducated man be doomed to death for stealing 40s. and the rich one suffer no punishment whatever?" (Morning Post, 1 December 1814)

William did not do a great deal while he lived in Calais, causing Viotti to chastise him.

He was involved in import and export, with John Herries, a former Treasury colleague, handling his interests in London. In reality, this seems to have been little more than an agency for Viotti’s wine importing business. (Yim, pp.198,205)

1817 – William relocated to Le Havre in search of new trading opportunities. (Yim, p.205) He seems to have had a wine, coffee and tea business (Cary & Co.) which ultimately failed in 1823.

William had brought 100,000 livres in capital to this venture, loaned to him by Viotti and his son George. (Yim, p.257)

1824 – Following Viotti’s death, William moved to Paris where he lived again with his wife.

1827 – William died in Paris. 
 
==Associates==

===William Pitt===

Chinnery knew Pitt well enough that in September 1793, Viotti asked him to pass on a letter from Madame Helene de Montgéroult. (Yim, p.54)

===George Rose===

30 July 1797 – George Macaulay wrote in his diary that:

"Mr Chinnery’s Father was writing-master to the children of Mr. Rose, and by him taken a few years since into his office in the Treasury as a clerk. . ." (W.C. Mackenzie (ed.), The War Diary of a London Scot (Alderman G.M. Macaulay) 1796-7, Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1916, pp.188-189)

1783 – Chinnery was appointed to the Treasury by George Rose, on the recommendation of Lord Thurlow. At some point, Rose stood as godfather to Rose’s son. (Jackson’s Oxford Journal, 28 March 1812)

Thurlow was the Lord Chancellor and was close to the King. He was dismissed in 1792 and in 1797, was part of a plot to remove the Pitt government and install Moira as Prime Minister.

According to one source, Chinnery had been Rose’s private secretary. (Denis Gray, Spencer Percival: The Evangelical Prime Minister, 1762-1812, p.318)

February 1798 – It seems likely that Rose and Chinnery had broken by this time, when, Chinnery later claimed, Rose sought to have Viotti expelled from the country. (Yim, p.100)

===Evan Nepean===

29 August 1792 – Letter from William Chinnery, Junior Clerk at the Treasury, to Evan Nepean, from Littlehampton, Sussex, a seaside resort where he was taking a holiday. He extolls the virtues of the resort and asks Nepean to attend to the enclosed matter in the absence of George Rose. The enclosed is a letter of 28 August from Thomas Williams, MP for Great Marlow, seeking his help in obtaining a justices' licence for James Pierce, an unsuccessful baker, to sell wine and spirits in the parish of St Martin-in-the-Fields. (TNA HO42/21)

This implies a personal relationship with Nepean.

===John Herries===

Herries was a Treasury official whom Chinnery had known during his time there. He was close to Chinnery after his flight to the Continent, looking after the British end of his import/export business. (Yim, p.198)

===Royalty===

The Duke of Cambridge was close to Viotti and through him, to the Chinnery family. Yim describes him as one of Margaret’s staunchest friends. (Yim, p.142)

In late 1811, shortly before his downfall, the Chinnerys dined with the Prince a number of times at the Pavilion, in company with Viotti. And after William’s disgrace, he inquired after their wellbeing.

Following William’s downfall and flight, the Duke of Cumberland approached Viotti about finding a place for young George, which was arranged through the Prime Minister. (Yim, pp.161-2)

==Family==

===Margaret Chinnery===

Margaret Tresilian was the eldest daughter of Brompton gentleman, Leonard Tresilian. She was well educated, intelligent and an accomplished pianist. She was a popular hostess and spoke French and Italian.

She educated her own children and those of relatives using the principles of a French educator, Madame de Genlis.

1796-1812 – She lived at Gillwell House, a property settled on her by her father.

Margaret was part of a successful ménage-a-trois involving her husband and the great Italian violinist Giovanni Battista Viotti.

5 November 1840 – Died in Paris.

===Giovanni Battista Viotti===

Viotti was one of the most famous musicians of his day, and was an intimate member of their family from soon after they met in 1792.

Viotti clearly had a sexual relationship with Margaret, of which William was fully approving.

He died in London on 3 March 1824. Margaret was the sole beneficiary of his small estate. (Yim, pp.260, 264) Following William’s death, her relationship with Viotti seems to have been raised in public, resulting in a law suit. (Yim, p.268)

===George Chinnery (brother)===

George was William’s younger brother. He studied at the Royal Academy schools.

He moved to Ireland in 1796, returning to London in 1801 without his wife and two children.

In 1802, he sailed to Madras on the ship Gilwell (presumably owned by his brother) and established himself there as a painter before moving to Calcutta, where he became the leading artist of the European community.

From 1825 to 1852, he based himself at Macau.

===George Chinnery (son)====

George was home educated at Gilwell, then attended Christ Church College, Oxford, from 1808 to 1811. He was awarded a Studentship in 1809, the Newdigate prize for poetry in 1810 and a BA with first class honours in mathematics in 1811. (Yim, p.8)

1812 – He became a junior clerk at the Treasury, through the intervention of the Duke of Cumberland. (Yim, pp.161-2)

1813 – Young George was not affected by his father’s fall from grace and was often seen out in society with Viotti. (Yim, p.185)

May 1814 – George travelled from London to Paris as Louis XVIII’s bursar, managing expenses. He had been seconded by the Treasury. He spent only a few days in Paris before being recalled to London. (Yim, p.177)

1816 – He was private secretary to George Canning. Yim described Canning as his patron. (Yim, p.202)

1821 – He was appointed assistant clerk of revenue. 

1823 – Transferred to the Foreign Office.

1824-25 – Sent to Madrid as British commissioner of claims in disputes with the Spanish government.

October 1825 – Died suddenly in Madrid. 

==Addresses==

1790 – Following their marriage, they lived at 5 Mortimer Street, Cavendish Square.

1798-1812 – They resided at 3 Duke Street, Adelphi on weekdays and Gilwell House, Waltham Abbey on weekends.

1812-17 – Following her husband’s disgrace and flight, Margaret lived with Viotti at 10 Charles Street, Manchester Square.

1817 – Margaret purchased a house at 17 Montagu Street, Portman Square, where she lived with Viotti until 1819 and intermittently until 1824.

1819 – Margaret purchased a property outside Paris at Châtillon-sous-Bagneux, and spent her time between Paris and London.

1824 – Margaret returned to London where she rented a property at 5 Upper Berkeley Street, where Viotti died. She then moved back to Paris to live with William Chinnery.

[[Category:Public Officials]]