Skip to main content
Reading options

Charles William Lambton v1

Catalogue entry

Sir Thomas Lawrence
NG6692 
Portrait of Charles William Lambton (‘The Red Boy’)

,

,

Extracted from:
The National Gallery; with entries by Emma Capron, Dillian Gordon, Sarah Herring, Mary McMahon, Letizia Treves and Francesca Whitlum‐Cooper; with technical contributions by Paul Ackroyd, Rachel Billinge, Lynne Harrison, Catherine Higgitt, Helen Howard, Larry Keith, Marta Melchiorre, Britta New, David Peggie, Marika Spring and Hayley Tomlinson, Online Entries (London: The National Gallery, 2024).

© The National Gallery, London

Oil on canvas, 140.5 × 110.6 cm

Provenance

Commissioned by John George Lambton (1792–1840), 1st Earl of Durham; by family descent to Edward Lambton, 7th Earl of Durham, who offered the painting through Christie’s; bought with the support of the American Friends of the National Gallery, the Estate of Miss Gillian Cleaver, Art Fund (with a contribution from the Wolfson Foundation), The Al Thani Collection Foundation, The Manny and Brigitta Davidson Charitable Foundation and through private appeal, 2021.

Exhibitions

London RA 1825 (288); Paris 1827 (ex‐catalogue); London 1830 (49); Manchester 1857 (221); London 1868 (242); Newcastle 1887 (715); London Grafton Galleries 1895 (116); London RA 1895 (6); London RA 1904 (52); Wembley 1924–5 (4); Newcastle 1929 (267); London 1931 (6); Amsterdam 1936 (73); London RA 1951–2 (178); Manchester 1957 (224); London RA 1968–9 (182); London 1979–80 (42); Berkeley, Memphis and Omaha 1995–6 (30); London, Minneapolis and New York 2003–4 (50); London and New Haven 2010–11 (45).

Literature

Williams 1831, vol. 2, pp. 363–7; Gower 1900, p. 141; Reid 1906, p. 184; Armstrong 1913, p. 144; Whitley 1930, p. 88; Garlick 1954, p. 120; Levey 1979, p. 75; Garlick 1989, p. 219, no. 463; pl. 88 (colour); Noon 2003; Levey 2005, pp. 254–8; Albinson, Funnell and Peltz 2010, pp. 250–2, no. 45.

Engravings and Prints

(1) ‘Master Lambton’, Samuel Cousins, ‘Published for the Proprietor, Sir T. Lawrence P.R.A. Jan.y 1827’, mezzotint, 46.6 × 35.3 cm; published later that year by ‘Colnaghi Son & Co. Printsellers to His Majesty March 26th 1827’, mezzotint, 46.6 × 35.5 cm.

(2) ‘Master Lambton’, Rudolph Huber, after Sir Thomas Lawrence, published 1837, chromolithograph, plate from album, 16.6 × 12.7 cm (head and shoulders in oval), 35.4 × 26 cm (sheet).

(3) John Quartley, after Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1835–67, wood engraving, proof illustration to an unidentified publication., 15.7 × 12.1 cm.

(4) ‘Master Lambton, the son of J.G. Lambton, Esq. M.P.’, Etienne Bocourt and Charles Maurand, after Sir Thomas Lawrence, illustration from L’Art, vols 1–7, 1875–6, wood engraving, 24.7 × 18.7 cm.

(5) ‘Master Lambton, son of Lord Durham’, after S. Cousins, after Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1899, photogravure, illustration to Samuel Rawson Gardiner’s Oliver Cromwell, London 1899, 25.9 × 20.3 cm.

(6) Samuel Arlent Edwards, after Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1900–23, mezzotint on chine collé, 20 × 14.8 cm.

Technical Notes

Support

The painting is executed on a single piece of commercially prepared twill weave canvas, characteristic of Lawrence’s works at this time.1 The dimensions of the stretcher, as measured during the latest conservation treatment (142.7 × 112 cm), indicate that the canvas might have been approximately the same dimensions as a bishop’s half‐length.2

Materials and Technique

The white ground was applied by the canvas supplier in two layers, which both consist of calcium carbonate (probably in the form of natural chalk, seen to contain occasional particles of siliceous minerals), with the inclusion of a small amount of lead white in the uppermost application.3 On top of the ground there is an additional light brown priming, consisting of a brown humic earth (of the type sold under the names of Vandyke brown or Cologne earth),4 yellow ochre, some lead white, small amounts of light red ochre,5 and bone black.6 This was probably applied by Lawrence himself, and perhaps similar in colour to the priming visible in his unfinished self portrait, now in the Royal Academy of Arts, London (fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Sir Thomas Lawrence, Self Portrait of Sir Thomas Lawrence P.R.A., about 1825. Oil on canvas, 91 × 71.4 cm. London, Royal Academy of Arts, 03/950. © The National Gallery, London

According to contemporary historical accounts, Lawrence’s standard portraiture practice on the first day ‘was to begin by making a drawing of the head full size on canvass [sic]; carefully tracing dimensions and expression’. He would continue to paint the head at the following sitting.7 This is probably what he did for this portrait too,8 although no drawing lines for the head can be seen in the infrared reflectogram, either because they were made in a material not visible with infrared reflectography or because the upper paint layers were not adequately penetrated. Infrared reflectography does, however, show a few sketchy lines defining the main position of the boy’s body (such as the horizontal line defining the position of his right leg, underneath the left one), his clothes and possibly some basic outlines for edges of rocks. These lines are not always precisely followed at the paint stage (figs 2, 3).

Fig. 2

Infrared reflectogram of NG6692. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 3

Infrared reflectogram detail of NG6692, showing underdrawing lines for the boy’s right leg. © The National Gallery, London

The lead X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) map shows an area around Charles Lambton’s head, probably rich in lead white and associated with a first, approximate laying‐in layer. After painting at least part of the head, Lawrence covered what was still exposed of this light‐coloured layer with a dark paint (see fig. 2), which he then disguised under further brown paint applications blending the area with the surrounding rocks. These final brown layers, which have slightly different hues and composition, were applied vigorously, sometimes pushing the paint with the point of a stiff brush, as visible just to the right of the boy’s head (figs 4, 5). Some brown paint (containing ochreous pigments) was used to alter the shape of the white shirt over the boy’s right shoulder (figs 6, 7). This, and a minor shift in the position of his right foot, initially planned in a slightly higher position (see fig. 2), are the few minor revisions (or rather adjustments) made while painting.

Fig. 4

Detail showing the brown paint vigorously applied around the boy’s head. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 5

Enlarged detail showing the marks left by Lawrence applying the uppermost paint for the rocks, sometimes pushing it down with the point of a stiff brush. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 6

XRF map for lead (detail of NG6692). The red arrow points at the change in the shape of the boy’s shirt. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 7

XRF map for iron (detail of NG6692). The red arrow points at the paint used to amend the shape of the boy’s shirt. © The National Gallery, London

The most significant change involves the choice of colour for the clothes. Historical accounts referring to the fact that Lawrence had initially painted the boy’s clothing in yellow (see Subject) were backed up by evidence gathered during the recent technical examination. XRF scanning and analysis of paint cross‐sections revealed a thin yellow paint layer, containing chrome yellow, beneath the boy’s red clothes (figs 8, 9). In 1825 chrome yellow was a relatively new pigment,9 although not completely unknown to other British artists working around that time, such as Joseph Mallord William Turner and John Constable.10 Lawrence was interested in new pigments, but cautious about their stability, and had a collaboration with the chemist and pigment manufacturer George Field to examine and test them. Some notes in Field’s journals, dated around 1815, record the analysis of two yellow samples received from Lawrence that both proved to be chrome yellow.11 The yellow paint under the boy’s clothes is so thin and even that it is either a very initial laying‐in application, or what was left after most of the yellow paint was removed while still wet. Both possibilities suggest that the decision to change the colour was taken early in the process of creating the painting.

Fig. 8

XRF map for chromium (detail of NG6692), showing the yellow paint under the red suit. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 9

Paint cross‐section from the boy’s torso, showing a thin chrome yellow layer beneath the complex build‐up of paint for the red suit, which includes different red lake pigments and glaze‐like translucent layers. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 10

The same paint cross‐section shown in fig. 9, under ultraviolet illumination. © The National Gallery, London

The boy’s iconic red velvet skeleton suit and jacket are rendered with a complex build‐up of paint: first a semi‐opaque and relatively thick red (containing different red lakes, vermilion and red ochre), followed by a variable sequence of layers used to model the folds. In the mid‐tones and shadow areas, the uppermost paint applications have the quality of glaze‐like translucent layers (fig. 10),12 found to contain pine resin in addition to heat‐bodied linseed oil, otherwise identified as the main paint binding medium.13 Two red lake pigments were identified in the paint for the clothes: both are precipitated on a similar aluminium‐rich substrate but derived from different dyestuffs, one extracted from the cochineal insect (probably the Mexican Dactylopius coccus Costa), the other from madder (probably Rubia tinctorum L.).14 The substrate of a third darker red‐brown lake, seen in the uppermost glaze‐like toning layers, contains a little copper in addition to aluminium, which would have an influence on the pigment’s hue, as found in certain madder‐based lakes used by Turner around the same time.15 An additional lac‐based lake (Kerria lacca) was identified in the flower on the right.16 This varied selection of lake pigments hints again at Lawrence’s working relationship with Field, known for his interest in the manufacture of madder.

The few touches of green in the landscape derive from a combination of yellows and blues, either mixed or applied in subsequent layers, as seen in the lighter leaves at top right, rendered with translucent blue glazes over a bright yellow (likely to be chrome yellow; fig. 11).17 The blue glazes contain Prussian blue and natural ultramarine, which were also identified in the nocturnal sky. Here, the blue paint is underlaid with a cool brownish‐grey tonal underpaint containing bone black, lead white and a humic brown earth. The combination of these brownish‐grey and blue layers appears particularly dark in the infrared reflectogram, showing that Lawrence covered part of the sky he had originally planned by extending the rocks at top left (see fig. 2).

Fig. 11

Detail showing the light green of the foliage rendered with blue glazes over a bright yellow. © The National Gallery, London

In painting most of the rocky backdrop, Lawrence used the light brown priming as an opaque base colour for subsequent multiple paint layers that, despite differing in thickness and hue, are all somewhat translucent. The technical images are particularly useful for appreciating the quality of these passages, gradually added around the boy’s figure, in fluid, broad and often overlapping brushstrokes (see figs 2, 7). They include a range of brown, yellow and red tints, modulated with a varied array of lakes (derived from yellow, brown‐yellow and red dyestuffs) and inorganic pigments (bone black, umber and brown humic earths, vermilion, red and yellow ochres, chrome yellow, Naples yellow and the less common Patent yellow). Similar to what was seen in the reds of the boy’s clothes, there are indications of pine resin having been included in the most translucent paint applications of the rocks, rich in binding medium (figs 12, 13). The lighter tones of those areas lit by the moon are rendered with more opaque paint, rich in lead white.

Fig. 12

Paint cross‐section from the rocks, showing a fragment of the white ground followed by the brown priming, two rather translucent paint layers and several varnish layers. © The National Gallery, London

Fig. 13

The same paint cross‐section shown in fig. 12, under ultraviolet illumination. © The National Gallery, London

Condition of the Painting/Conservation History

There are no records of the painting’s conservation history prior to its acquisition. The painting is in remarkably good condition apart from a small L‐shaped tear above the sitter’s head to the right. This was repaired with a full lining treatment that appears to date from the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. Small areas of high impasto were flattened during the lining and the original tacking margins were removed as part of the process, but it is difficult to say whether the edges of the image were trimmed slightly at the same time. The current stretcher is probably contemporary with the lining.

When the picture was acquired, it was evident that it had been coated with a number of varnish layers, which had become heavily discoloured. Varnish layers covering the liner’s paper tape applied to the edges of the picture were found to contain mastic, dammar and pine resins, confirming that the painting had been revarnished at various times in order to ‘refresh’ its appearance. The painting was cleaned in 2021 and these varnishes were removed, but only partially in the red clothes, which have final glazing layers containing a natural resin (possibly pine) and were therefore sensitive to the cleaning materials.

Frame

The frame is original to the painting. Lawrence left a strip of unpainted canvas, approximately 1.4 cm high, across the whole of the bottom edge. The tip of the sitter’s right foot extends right up to this unpainted strip, and it was clearly intended to coincide with the bottom sight edge of the frame. However, the height dimension between the top and bottom sight edges is too small to show the full image: when the painting is framed with the foot touching the bottom edge, an approximately 1.5 cm strip at the top edge with some of the foliage remains hidden behind the frame rebate. In order to show as much of the painting as possible the sight edge of the frame was modified in 2021.

Context

Sir Thomas Lawrence painted the Portrait of Charles William Lambton (‘The Red Boy’) in 1825, at the age of 56, five years after he had been elected President of the Royal Academy.18 At this time the artist was bringing to a close an extensive series of full‐length portraits of heads of state and military leaders significant in the defeat of Napoleon, as commissioned by the Prince Regent in 1814 and continued after he ascended the throne in 1820 as George IV. This project involved Lawrence travelling across Europe from 1818 to 1820, and resulted in 28 full‐ and half‐length portraits that would ultimately hang in the Waterloo Chamber at Windsor Castle.19 Some of these large‐scale paintings combined dark, smoke‐filled backgrounds with a central sitter dramatically lit as if by an unknown source.20 The works influenced the artist’s production of The Red Boy in its unusually large scale and complex setting for the portrait of a child.

In addition to his royal duties as both artist and adviser to the king, in 1824, when the government purchased John Julius Angerstein’s collection to found the National Gallery, Lawrence was the sole artist appointed to be part of the superintending body (later Trustees) of the new institution. The artist had been a fast friend of the collector and counted this among a series of losses affecting him in the early 1820s, including the death of his only surviving brother, and his close friend the artist and diarist Joseph Farington. By 1825 Lawrence was at the height of his artistic powers, but also experiencing a high level of exhaustion. At the beginning of the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition in 1825, he confided to his sister he had ‘never been more fagged’ or in danger ‘of failing in my task’, before later in the letter assuring her that he had ‘never painted better’.21

Despite sustained popularity and success, Lawrence was never free of financial difficulties, due to the speed at which he spent the money he made. A large part went towards an extensive collection of European old master drawings, which informed his paintings.22 He sought to engage with artistic traditions from the Renaissance, and also to emulate the career of recent British masters, including his predecessor as President of the Royal Academy Sir Joshua Reynolds and Reynolds’s contemporary Thomas Gainsborough. Works by both artists influenced Lawrence’s compositions for some of the Waterloo portraits and The Red Boy. In Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse (fig. 14), Reynolds represented light falling on the seated central figure of Siddons, which made her appear to emerge from her darkened sublime surroundings. Even further back in Reynolds’s own work, a similar approach had been adopted with more dynamic effect in the stormy natural setting of Captain the Honourable Augustus Keppel, a painting that had established the artist’s reputation in the early 1750s (fig. 15).

Fig. 14

Sir Joshua Reynolds, Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse, 1783–4. Oil on canvas, 239.4 × 147.6 cm. San Marino, The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens, 21.2. Courtesy of the Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens, San Marino, California

Fig. 15

Sir Joshua Reynolds, Captain the Honourable Augustus Keppel, 1752–3. Oil on canvas, 270.2 × 179.5 cm. London, National Maritime Museum, BHC2823. © National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London

Thomas Gainsborough’s The Blue Boy (fig. 16) reflected the artist’s allegiance to Sir Anthony Van Dyck and was first exhibited in 1770 to little public notice. It is thought to have influenced an early work by Lawrence, Portrait of Arthur Atherley as an Etonian (fig. 17). The Blue Boy continued to be influential into the 1800s, due to its sale to John Hoppner in 1802 and later inclusion in significant exhibitions such as at the British Institution in 1813, where it is likely that Lawrence would have been able to see it again.23 The Blue Boy set a precedent as a large‐scale portrait of a young boy that could act as a conduit for an artist’s skills and engagement with contemporary poetic thought and practice, something Lawrence would subsequently achieve with The Red Boy.

Fig. 16

Thomas Gainsborough, The Blue Boy, about 1770. Oil on canvas, 179.4 × 123.8 cm. San Marino, The Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens, 21.1. Courtesy of the Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens, San Marino, California

Fig. 17

Sir Thomas Lawrence, Portrait of Arthur Atherley as an Etonian, about 1791. Oil on canvas, 125.73 × 100.33 cm. Los Angeles, LACMA, Gift of Hearst Magazines, 47.29.5. © Los Angeles County Museum of Art, California

Subject

The sitter for the painting, Charles William Lambton (1818–1831), was the eldest son of John George Lambton (1792–1840) by his second wife Lady Louisa (1797–1841). John George was Member of Parliament for Durham from 1813, assisted in the preparation of the first Reform Bill in 1832 and was created 1st Earl of Durham the following year. The boy’s maternal grandfather, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, was Whig Prime Minister from 1830 to 1834. The boy’s mother had previously sat to Lawrence for her portrait in 1821.24 Accounts of Charles William Lambton show great admiration for the child, both from family and contemporary acquaintances. The devotion John George felt towards his eldest son is evident in the warm correspondence sent between them from 1828 to 1830.25

The painting of this six‐ or seven‐year‐old boy is representative of Lawrence’s mature portraiture skills and ambitions, with the artist seeking to elevate the work beyond a simple figure portrait by incorporating poetic and romanticised features in its unusual setting. On 15 July 1824 Lawrence wrote to the boy’s father explaining that while his standard price for a picture of this size and ‘general class’ was 400 guineas, he was asking for 500 guineas for this work due to the ‘additional study and labor [sic] which this subject demands’.26 This suggests that from an early stage in the development of the work he was ambitious for it to be more than a standard portrait and that John George was aware of his intention. Following a visit to the artist’s studio the English poet Bryan Waller Procter wrote to say, ‘What a beautiful boy that is of Lambton’s! Pray do not forget or neglect your yesterday’s intention of lifting him above the level of a portrait.’27

An early sitting for the portrait is documented in an undated letter from Lady Louisa to her husband, in which she writes she has ‘just returned with Charles from his sitting. Sir Thomas has drawn in the figure very carefully, and is to have a very long sitting the next time, I think the picture will be perfectly delightful and I don’t see how anything can look better than the dress.’28 The clothing of the sitter is central to the portrait and, although somewhat outdated, ties it to the contemporary world of the painting’s production. The ‘skeleton suit’ the young boy wears had become popular from the 1780s and ubiquitous in representations of aristocratic boys at the end of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Closely associated with English tastes and ‘way of life’, such suits were smart, robust and widely recommended to allow children more freedom to move in the outdoors, physical activity in childhood being viewed as of great importance to their development. While there was some variation, the standard skeleton suit had trousers with a raised waist and a short jacket to which they were fastened with buttons. Underneath the jacket the child wore a white shirt, often with a frilled edge, and white silk hose beneath the trousers, which often finished mid‐calf on the younger boys.29 Charles William Lambton wears a red velvet skeleton suit under a velvet jacket, the costliest form of the suit. This material is indicated by the textured shine Lawrence has given the clothing. The shoes were probably hand made in Moroccan leather, an expensive investment for a growing child.

Red skeleton suits feature in a number of portraits of young boys by Lawrence, with some slight variation to their form. In The Children of John Angerstein, Esq. (fig. 18) the eldest son stands with his back to the viewer thereby obscuring how the jacket and trousers connect, although we can see the jacket is cropped and the trousers have a split hem to allow for greater movement. He wears brown shoes for outdoors, rougher than the black leather of the shoes worn by Lambton. In an earlier portrait, The Children of Ascoyghe Boucherett (formerly misattributed as The Children of John Angerstein) (fig. 19), the boy in the suit wears his jacket fully buttoned up. His undershirt is made of stiffer material and the collar is more angled. It is, however, open and, together with his right sock, which is depicted rolling down, suggests youthful exertion. The portrait of Lambton shows no such indication of physical activity. The closest sitter in costume is the young boy in the portrait of Frances Hawkins and her Son, John James Hamilton (fig. 20), who wears a similar shirt with a ruffled collar, extended red suit and over jacket, with red trousers cropped in the same fashion, and accompanied by black leather shoes. All of these children are portrayed with their hair short, loose and unstyled. It is notable that the aforementioned paintings were made almost 20 years before The Red Boy. By the mid‐1820s the skeleton suit was starting to go out of style, replaced by the emerging fashion for the ‘tunic suit’, so it seems likely that this choice was steered by an influential party.30 Given the earlier quote perhaps this was the boy’s mother, Lady Louisa.

Fig. 18

Sir Thomas Lawrence, The Children of John Angerstein, Esq., 1807. Oil on canvas, 184.3 × 148.8 cm. Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie / Jörg P. Anders

Fig. 19

Sir Thomas Lawrence, The Children of Ascoyghe Boucherett, 1799–1800. Oil on canvas, 194 × 144.8 cm. Paris, Musée du Louvre. Photo © RMN‐Grand Palais (Musée du Louvre) / Mathieu Rabeau

Fig. 20

Sir Thomas Lawrence, Frances Hawkins and her Son, John James Hamilton, 1805–6. Oil on canvas, 165.1 × 165.1 cm. Abercorn Heirlooms Settlement Trustees.

A much‐repeated anecdote relating to the painting purports that the colour of the skeleton suit was changed from yellow to red during its creation. This has been supported by recent scientific investigations that revealed a layer of chrome yellow underneath the clothing of the figure. As the layer is very thin, this suggests that the decision to alter the colour was taken early in the process.31 Yellow skeleton suits certainly existed in this period, as visible on one of the sitters in Sir Henry Raeburn’s painting of The Macdonald Children (fig. 21). Lawrence’s first biographer D.E. Williams discussed the amendment of the colour at great length, relating it to Lawrence’s process and the ‘singular indecision in the choice of his colours’. He relays that the colour was objected to as it ‘produced an unpleasant monotony with the browns of the gravel and rocks forming the background’. Williams proceeded to consider whether the yellow had been a good choice in the first place for the ‘sentiment’ of the picture, and if so, why the background had not been revised instead. He asks ‘[m]ight not this back‐ground have been relieved by lichens, and stunted mountain herbage, and sere red foliage – or would not a deep grove, with the luxuriance of forest trees, have been better adapted to the purposes or sentiment of the painting?’ He appears critical of the strength of the colour used to replace it, describing ‘the garish, flashy red … the least suited to express repose, solemnity, and the hallowed serenity of contemplation’.32

Fig. 21

Sir Henry Raeburn, The Macdonald Children, about 1798–1800. Oil on canvas, 143.1 × 113.7 cm. Upton House, National Trust, NT 446695. Photo © NTPL/Upton House (Bearsted Collection)/Angelo Hornak / Bridgeman Images

Lawrence has placed his sitter outdoors at night, seated on a rocky point overlooking the sea. While this rock initially appears to mimic the form of an armchair, during the creation of the picture the artist extended the area into the upper left part of the painting, presumably to move away from this identifiable shape and to strengthen the impression of a naturalistic setting (see Technical Notes). The moon is just visible behind a leafy branch in the top left corner and is reflected twice: in the distant sea and in the rock pool at the bottom left. By the knee of the boy’s right leg, folded up under his left leg in a position of comfort, emerges a small patch of flowers emphasising the flowering of his youth. To the right of the young boy is a loose bag that appears to contain a large piece of fabric with a pattern of stars or golden circles upon it.33 The boy’s left arm supports his head as he looks up dreamily towards the sky. His right arm rests on the ‘arm’ of the rocky backdrop. He is lit as if by a light source internal to the painting, rather than by the moonlight. The image is undeniably Romantic, tinged with a certain melancholy. The setting would have added to the thoughtful characterisation of the young Lambton and his potential, perhaps seeking to associate the figure with developing ideas of childhood freedom and creativity, innocent until corrupted through experience of the world.34 Sir Michael Levey, Lawrence expert and former Director of the National Gallery, suggested the artist may have been consciously referring to poetry of the period on the subject of the inspiration of nature for young children, and he makes links with William Wordsworth’s Lyrical Ballads (1798) and The Prelude (1805).35 Wordsworth framed childhood as a condition of ‘spiritual harmony and closeness to the divine as experienced through nature’.36

The Portrait of Charles William Lambton is undoubtedly one of Lawrence’s masterpieces, and is of an unexpectedly large scale for a young child. The painting is displayed in a Lawrence frame, which the artist designed together with George Morant, his frame‐maker.37 Known as either a Lawrence frame or a Morant frame, Morant’s trade label can be seen on the reverse of this work. Lawrence often persuaded his clients to have the distinctive frame made for their paintings. In 1825 he specified additional charges for this finished portrait: £24 10s. for the frame and £7 for the packing case he supplied.38 The width and high level of decoration on these frames have been the subject of discussion by later academics and curators, but the artist himself is quoted as saying ‘a Frame is so much a part of the Picture’ and can therefore be considered an intentional part of the artwork’s finish.39

By at least the end of 1827 Lawrence had written a poem relating to the work: ‘On the Portrait of the Son of J.G. Lambton, Esq., M.P’. Published in 1828, it is here replicated in full:40
Beautiful Boy – thy heavenward thoughts
Are pictured in thine eyes,
Thou hast no taint of mortal birth,
Thy communing is not of earth,
Thy holy musings rise:
Like incense kindled from on high,
Ascending to its native sky.

And such a head might once have graced
The infant Samuel, when
Call’d by the favour of his God,
The youthful priest the Temple trod
Beloved of Heaven and men!
The same devotion on his brow
As brightens in thy forehead now.

Or, thou may’st seem to Fancy’s eye
One borne by arms Divine;
One, whom on Earth a Saviour bless’d
And on whose features left impress’d
The Contact’s holy sign:
A light, a halo, and a grace,
So pure th’ expression of that face.

Or has the Painter’s skill alone
Such grace and glory given?
Clothed thee with attributes which seem
Creations of an angel’s dream,
To raise the soul to Heaven?
No, as he found thee, he arrayed,
And Genius caught what God had made!

Reception

John George Lambton was clearly pleased with the final portrait, and upon seeing the finished work in the artist’s studio exclaimed that it was ‘Most beautiful!’. He had it moved at haste to his home at 13 Cleveland Row where he wrote that it was hung ‘over the chimney‐piece in my bedroom. I therefore see his angelic face the last thing before I go to sleep and the first when I awake.’41 In a further demonstration of his appreciation for the artist’s skills, the elder Lambton wrote to Lawrence following the close of the 1825 RA exhibition to note, ‘I wished to sit to you myself for a whole length as a fellow to that of Lady Louisa’.42 Later commentators such as Miss Croft described the portrait of the young Lambton as ‘not a jot more lovely than he was’, while Prince Leopold referred to the sitter as ‘handsome Charlie’.43

The portrait was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1825 as Portrait of the Son of J.G. Lambton, Esq., where it was well received. Lawrence was part of that year’s Selection Committee and exhibited eight works in total, all portraits.44 In the letter sent during the painting’s creation, B.W. Procter wrote ‘I really think that you need fear nothing (old or new) which can be placed beside it’, indicating that at the time the artist had some concerns about the display of the work in this exhibition.45 The painting was hung in the School of Painting above Francis Danby’s The Delivery of Israel out of Egypt (1825; Harris Museum and Art Gallery, Preston, inv. PRSMG: P116). This placement led the reporter from the New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal to suggest it was, scarcely possible to experience a more delightful feeling than that consequent on turning from [Danby’s] awfully impressive and appalling scene, to this lovely work, which hangs in immediate contact with it, and which consists simply of the portrait of a child six or seven years of age, seated in a natural scene of picturesque beauty. Whether it arise from some indescribable charm in the picture itself, or in the circumstance of its contrast with that just described, we cannot tell; but certain it is that no one even of Sir Thomas’s portraits ever gave us so much delight as this.46 In 1930 William Whitley referenced criticism directed at the Hanging Committee for the placement of this work in the School of Painting, a smaller room, and not ‘on the line’. He refers to a protesting critic that claimed the work was ‘completely destroyed by being at such a height’, although this view is not reflected across the contemporary sources.47

A number of exhibition reviews gave the portrait high praise. The Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review showed preference to the ‘charming portrait’ of Charles William Lambton above the others Lawrence exhibited ‘on which Sir Thomas has bestowed infinite pains’.48 La Belle Assemblée described it as ‘singularly fascinating and lovely’.49 The London Magazine and Review referred to the ‘very capital portrait’ as one of Lawrence’s chef d’oeuvres, ‘florid and rich, even to exuberance, in colour; and harmonious and vigorous in effect’.50 The reviews were, however, not entirely uncritical and there was less enthusiasm than there had been for The Calmady Children (1823; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. 25.110.1), a portrait of two young girls that Lawrence had exhibited the year before.51 The Times remarked on the ‘sparkling intelligence of youth’ portrayed by Lawrence, but followed with a less favourable comment regarding consistency in the depiction of moonlight.52 The Monthly Magazine also discussed this ‘spot of light in a corner of this picture, which, we confess, we cannot understand. It looks like a peep of the moon; but the colouring, in every other part, prohibits the idea of moonlight. If it mean nothing but effect, we should call it “effect defective”.’53

Lawrence retained a level of independence despite the numerous commissions from George IV, and had success in his lifetime across Europe. In 1824 he contributed a replica of a portrait of the duc de Richelieu and Mrs John Scandrett Harford to the Paris Salon and the following summer painted full lengths of the new king, Charles X, and his son, the duc d’Angoulême.54 At the next Salon of 1827 he exhibited the Portrait of Charles William Lambton along with a portrait of Marie‐Caroline, Duchesse de Berry (about 1825; Musée de l’Histoire de France, Château de Versailles, inv. MV 8505).55 The painter and antiquary the comte de Forbin wrote to Lawrence towards the end of 1827, upon receipt of his portrait for the exhibition, that it was ‘one of the most beautiful productions to come out of your brush for the brilliance, the charm of the execution and the richness of the harmony’. He assured the artist that he had placed it ‘as well as possible’.56

At the Paris Salon in 1827 the portrait attracted attention but divided opinion. Some thought it to be a masterpiece, while others were less complimentary. The novelist and critic Stendhal (the pen name of Marie‐Henri Beyle), for example, critiqued the work of Lawrence as slapdash and contrived, but acknowledged that he could remember the face of the sitter two months later.57 The artist Thomas Jones wrote to Lawrence quoting a review from a French newspaper that wrote of the figure as ‘so alive, so animated […] its complexion, its pose, its expression all charm you’. He also reported that he had seen a gentleman describing the painting to a listening crowd as Lawrence’s idea of Lord Byron in his youth,58 perhaps because Byron had died in April 1824, shortly before the painting was produced. This interpretation became attached to the portrait, reaffirming that it encouraged a romanticised poetic reading. Patrick Noon notes that references were still being made to Lawrence’s painting as a ‘Byronic icon’ in Salon reviews of the 1830s.59 In 1856 the poet, journalist and art critic Théophile Gautier recalled the portrait as causing ‘a prodigious sensation: that camellia carnation, those eyes so silky and so brilliant, that pearly visage so sombre and clear it conjures the look of the young Byron; that precocious dreamer astonished many Parisians, who believed they had before them a creation borne [sic] of the fantasy of a poetic brush’.60 Awareness of the painting had evidently already reached France prior to the Salon of 1827 as Eugène Delacroix wrote to his sitter Baron Schwiter soon after the opening to recommend that he return to Paris as the Lambton portrait he ‘so admired as a mezzotint’ was in the exhibition.61 Delacroix’s portrait of Schwiter was influenced both by this portrait by Lawrence and by Constable’s The Cornfield, which was also exhibited at the 1827 Salon.62

Sadly, Charles William Lambton died of tuberculosis on 24 September 1831, aged only 13. The child’s father and mother were devastated by his death, and this loss was clearly felt by other acquaintances, too. Princess Lieven wrote to Lambton’s grandfather Lord Grey, recalling ‘that charming little Lambton was the pet of everyone’.63 The sadness associated with the loss of the young boy continued to be recorded later into the nineteenth century in relation to this painting, as John Timbs wrote in 1860, ‘it is hardly possible to look upon this interesting picture of innocent childhood, of imitative art and beautiful nature, without feeling one’s heart more than “idly stirr’d” at the brief existence of this graceful scion of a noble house’.64 In 1882 Lord Ronald Gower recorded a quote referring to this portrait of a ‘beautiful boy, whose features will live for ever in the well‐known picture by Lawrence’.65

In the earliest biography of Lawrence published in 1831, the year after the artist’s death, the author Williams pronounced this work as ‘one of the most beautiful paintings of a child, ever produced by art; and … decidedly the best portraiture of childhood by Sir Thomas Lawrence’.66 His description of the boy as ‘seated carelessly on a rock, without any of the emblems used by painters to express rank or wealth’ may be undermined by the evident cost of the clothing of the boy, but probably refers to the naturalistic setting. He quotes a contemporary periodical which remarked that ‘[t]he simple action and sweet expression of infantile nature which we see in this portrait were never excelled by Sir Joshua Reynolds in his happiest moments’.67

The portrait of Charles William Lambton was exhibited on many occasions throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. It influenced contemporaries in Europe, such as Delacroix (who had visited his studio in July 1825), and works by later British artists, including John Everett Millais. Lawrence’s picture became better known in France through engraving and lithography, ‘much of it pirated’ (see Engravings and Prints).68 In 1857 the portrait was displayed at the significant Art Treasures exhibition in Manchester alongside paintings by modern masters of the English School, including Sir William Beechey, J.M.W. Turner, John Constable and William Etty.69 In The Art‐Treasures Examiner, accompanied by a poor reproduction, the reviewer ‘Peregrine Sketchly’ describes The Portrait of Charles William Lambton as ‘a sort of half‐real, half‐ideal work. The boy reclines on a rock, in a studied attitude, gazing skyward, with Scheffer‐like intensity. The picture is beautifully wrought, but we cannot get over the absence of all simplicity in its treatment.’70 The painting’s location and condition can be tracked through references in the later nineteenth century. In 1876 a report on Lambton Castle was published in the Athenaeum, in which the writer notes that the collection, which he understood to be largely constructed by the 1st Earl of Durham, consisted mostly of works by English painters. Here, the Portrait of Charles William Lambton was hung ‘on the line’ and is referred to as the ‘most famous, if not the best, picture in the collection’. It is described as ‘in capital condition, and may have been restored recently … at any rate it is seldom we meet a Lawrence in such good order’.71

The portrait was exhibited at the celebrated Fair Children exhibition at the Grafton Galleries in 1895, which displayed 450 ‘examples associated with childhood’ of toys, story books, clothing, and paintings by artists including Van Dyck, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Raeburn, Millais, Johann Zoffany, Edward Burne‐Jones and George Frederic Watts.72 Also exhibited was an ‘original sketch’ for Master Lambton lent by H. Cavendish (which passed to H. Pfungst and was then sold to F. Hayward in 1898).73 Lady Emily Augusta (1823–1886), sister of Charles William Lambton, married Lieutenant‐Colonel William Henry Frederick Cavendish (1817–1881) in 1843 and it is likely to have been her son Henry Frederick Compton Cavendish (1854–1928) who lent this ‘original sketch’. The Portrait of Charles William Lambton is the main illustration in a review by Marion Hepworth‐Dixon in the Magazine of Art, described as ‘another work popularised by engraving’. She comments on the condition, ‘[t]he portrait would seem to have suffered at the hands of the cleaner, for its colour appears a trifle more garish than its admirers remember it some quarter of a century ago at Lambton’.74 On 7 June 1895, Christie, Manson & Woods sold an engraving by ‘S. Cousins, after Sir T. Lawrence, Master Lambton, 34l’, indicating that demand continued for reproductions of this image.75

The portrait was exhibited and reproduced regularly in the twentieth century. Gainsborough’s The Blue Boy was sold in 1921 to Henry Huntington for the record price of £182,000, and the following year Lawrence’s portrait was reproduced in the Illustrated London News and given the title The Red Boy.76 Potential sale negotiations for the painting began in 1929, with intermediaries for the dealer Joseph Duveen, the 5th Earl of Durham, valuing the painting at £200,000. However, at auction in 1932, amid the Depression, the work failed to sell with a much lower reserve of £100,000, creating newspaper headlines.77 Thirty‐five years later, in 1967 the fame of The Red Boy was further extended when it became the first painting to be included on a British postage stamp. The work itself remained in the family from its commission until 2021, when it was bought for and entered the National Gallery Collection.78

Notes

1 See the online technical essay on Lawrence’s painting materials and practice: Simon 2010. (Back to text.)

2 A bishop’s half‐length was a little bigger than a standard half‐length canvas, with slightly different dimensions given by different sources: 56 inches high, by 45 or 44 inches wide; Carlyle 2001, Appendix 22, p. 447. The painting has been lined and the original tacking margins removed as part of this process. The original canvas reaches close to the edges of the stretcher, but the edges of the painting are covered with paper tape, so it is difficult to say whether the canvas was also slightly trimmed. The X‐radiograph shows just one set of tacks, which is indicative of the stretcher being contemporary with the lining. (Back to text.)

3 The structure and composition of the preparatory and paint layers were investigated through analysis of paint samples, mounted as cross‐sections, using optical microscopy (OM) and scanning electron‐microscopy with energy dispersive X‐ray analysis (SEM‐EDX). For a more detailed account of the findings, see National Gallery Scientific Department Report: Inorganic Analysis, Marta Melchiorre, June 2023, unpublished. (Back to text.)

4 The identification of this semi‐transparent, rich brown pigment is based on its appearance and results of EDX analysis, which indicate it contains organic matter and rather low amounts of mineral matter probably in the form of iron oxide, alumina, calcium carbonate and silica; Eastaugh et al. 2008, pp. 388, 196. Vandyke brown, Cologne earth and Cassel earth are the main brown humic earths (also called ‘bituminous browns’) reported in late eighteenth‐century and nineteenth‐century sources of pigments and colours, where they are mainly distinguished on the basis of their hue (darker for Cologne earth, warmer for Cassel earth); Carlyle 2001, pp. 482–4; Field 1835, pp. 159–60. (Back to text.)

5 The yellow and red ochres in the priming and following paint layers are natural earth pigments, given they were found to be associated with mineral impurities. (Back to text.)

6 Bone black is hereafter used to refer to a pigment found to contain calcium and phosphorous (as detected by EDX analysis), as typical of blacks of animal origin consisting of hydroxyapatite with a coke formed from collagen on burning. The low levels of magnesium indicate it is not likely to have been prepared from ivory. Late eighteenth‐century and nineteenth‐century sources of pigments and colours tend to refer to fine arts painting pigments of this type as ‘ivory blacks’, whether or not they were from ivory; Carlyle 2001, Appendix 26, pp. 467–8; Winter and West FitzHugh 2007. (Back to text.)

7 See Simon 2010, ‘2. Lawrence at work’, reference to Cunningham 1833, pp. 194–5. (Back to text.)

8 This hypothesis is reinforced by a letter documenting an early sitting for the portrait (see Subject). (Back to text.)

9 It was introduced between 1804 and 1809, but more widely used from the second quarter of the nineteenth century; Kühn and Curran 1986. (Back to text.)

11 Field tested these yellows in or before the year Lawrence was knighted (1815) as he refers to the painter as ‘Thomas Lawrence Esquire’ or ‘T. Lawrence Esquire R.A.’ in notes associated with these samples, while he uses ‘Sir Thomas Lawrence’ in a slightly later note on a blue sample; Harley 1979, p. 82. (Back to text.)

12 Some glaze‐like toning layers, thought to be original based on pigment identification, are seen to lie over accumulated dirt and, perhaps, an unpigmented intermediate medium‐rich layer (possibly varnish). This suggests that significant time may have passed before they were added, something not unheard of for Lawrence, who often postponed the final varnishing by a year or more. See Simon 2010, ‘3. Lawrence’s materials and processes’. (Back to text.)

13 National Gallery Scientific Department Report: Analysis of Paint Medium, David Peggie, February 2023 (and additional analysis by Rachel Beard, May 2023), unpublished. GC‐MS analysis of two samples, taken from a dark green and a reddish‐brown paint passage on the top and right‐hand edges respectively, confirmed the paint binder to be heat‐bodied linseed oil. The interpretation of GC‐MS results from additional samples, including from the red velvet skeleton suit, was hampered by the presence of non‐original varnish layers. However, there is some evidence to suggest that the solvent‐sensitive glaze layers observed in cross‐section are likely to contain a substantial amount of pine resin. (Back to text.)

14 National Gallery Scientific Department Report: Analysis of Lake Pigments, David Peggie, February 2023, unpublished. Notably, the madder lake was found to be rich in pseudopurpurin, a component indicative of the pigment’s preparation method. A cochineal‐based lake had been previously identified in Lawrence’s Queen Charlotte, 1789 (NG4257); Kirby, Spring and Higgitt 2007. (Back to text.)

15 Townsend 1993, p. 240. (Back to text.)

16 A trace of quercitrin was also observed in the HPLC analysis of this sample. This is likely to derive from a yellowish‐brown quercitron oak‐based lake, either mixed in the red paint for the flower or perhaps from the light brown layer below. (Back to text.)

17 Greens derived from chrome yellow in a mixture with Prussian blue have also been identified in Lawrence’s Portrait of a Gentleman, a small work in oil on paper, currently dated as early as around 1808 (Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Neue Pinakothek Munich, inv. 13035); Kühn and Curran 1986, p. 213. (Back to text.)

18 Lawrence was appointed Principal Painter in Ordinary to the King from 1792, became a full member of the Royal Academy in 1794 and was knighted in 1815. (Back to text.)

19 Neither artist nor patron would live to see the paintings installed in the Chamber. (Back to text.)

20 Shawe‐Taylor 2013; Lyons 2019, pp. 47–59, esp. pp. 56–9. (Back to text.)

21 Letter of 12 May 1825, quoted in Williams 1831, vol. 2, pp. 368–9. (Back to text.)

22 Two of these are now held in the National Gallery Collection, both presented in 1837 by Lord Francis Egerton: Agostino Carracci, Cephalus carried off by Aurora in her Chariot, about 1597 (NG147); Agostino Carracci, A Woman borne off by a Sea God (?), about 1599 (NG148). (Back to text.)

23 Riding 2022, pp. 9–23, 53. (Back to text.)

24 Garlick 1989, p. 182, no. 263. (Back to text.)

25 Published in Reid 1906, p. 184. (Back to text.)

26 From a letter in the Lambton Archives, cited in Albinson, Funnell and Peltz 2010, p. 51. (Back to text.)

27 London, Royal Academy, LAW/4/298: letter from B.W. Procter to Lawrence [1825]. (Back to text.)

28 Reid 1906, p. 184. (Back to text.)

30 Rose 1989, pp. 91–5. (Back to text.)

31 The red paint above is thicker and relatively opaque, so the yellow layer does not affect the surface colour. (Back to text.)

32 Williams 1831, vol. 2, pp. 364–5. When the change of colour is noted almost a century later in Whitley’s Art in England, the author references an alternate story by a reviewer of the 1825 exhibition at the Royal Academy, published in the News of Literature and Fashion, that the removal of the colour was due to outrage from John George Lambton who viewed it as a reference to his nickname of ‘The Yellow Dandy’; Whitley 1930, pp. 88–9. (Back to text.)

33 This feature is almost entirely ignored by commentators on the painting. Williams refers to the ‘glossy blue handkerchief with yellow spots’ as ‘a great blemish’; Williams 1831, vol. 2, pp. 364–5. (Back to text.)

35 London, Royal Academy, LAW/5/281: letter from B.W. Procter to Lawrence [1825]. Ironically, Wordsworth opined in 1831 that ‘Lawrence’s portrait of young Lambton is a wretched histrionic thing; the public taste must be vitiated indeed, if that is admired’; Levey 2005, p. 106. (Back to text.)

37 It is a pinewood frame with a repeat pattern of fine scrolls, small flowers and curving three husks. The frame was restored by Isabella Kocum on the painting’s entry into the National Gallery Collection. (Back to text.)

38 From a letter in the Lambton Archives, cited in Albinson, Funnell and Peltz 2010, p. 251. (Back to text.)

39 Leeds Arts Calendar, 25, Spring 1954, p. 17. (Back to text.)

41 Reid 1906, p. 184. (Back to text.)

42 London, Royal Academy, LAW/4/351: letter from J.G. Lambton, Lambton Hall, to [Thomas Lawrence] [11 July 1825]. This portrait of J.G. Lambton was exhibited as no. 135 in the 1829 RA exhibition, as no. 51 at the British Institution in 1830, and as no. 325 at the South Kensington Museum in 1868; Garlick 1989, pp. 181–2. (Back to text.)

43 Levey 2005, pp. 254, 258–9; Reid 1906, pp. 184–5. (Back to text.)

44 The other seven were: [in the Great Room] 28 Portrait of Mrs Peel; 57 Portrait of H.R.H. the Princess Sophia; 71 Portrait of the Duke of Wellington; 83 Portrait of the Right Hon. G. Canning; 118 Portrait of the Lord Chancellor; 140 Portrait of J.W. Croker, Esq.; [in the Anti‐room] 399 Portrait of Lord Bexley. (Back to text.)

46 The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, 1825, p. 302. (Back to text.)

47 William Whitley asserts that contemporary newspapers recorded the elder Lambton being greatly offended by this placement, believing it to be related to his position as a Whig politician; Whitley 1930, pp. 88–9. (Back to text.)

48 The Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review, 7 May 1825, p. 301. (Back to text.)

49 La Belle Assemblée, or Court and Fashionable Magazine, 6, June 1825. (Back to text.)

50 The London Magazine and Review, 1 June 1825, p. 267. (Back to text.)

51 Levey 2005, p. 254. (Back to text.)

52 The Times, 3 May 1825. (Back to text.)

53 ‘Fine Arts – The Exhibition, Royal Academy’, The Monthly Magazine, 1825, p. 433. (Back to text.)

54 Levey 2005, p. 259. (Back to text.)

55 A letter from J.G. Lambton requests that if there is a printed list, to not use the name of ‘Master Lambton’, but ‘Charles William Lambton’, or ‘C.W. Lambton’ (the painting was not included in the catalogue); London, Royal Academy, LAW/5/167: letter from J.G. Lambton, Paris, to [Thomas Lawrence] [21 August 1827]. (Back to text.)

56 London, Royal Academy, LAW/5/190, letter from Cte. De Forbin, to [Thomas Lawrence] [16 November 1827]. (Back to text.)

57 Stendhal 1828, pp. 190–1; Peltz in Albinson, Funnell and Peltz 2010, p. 252, no. 45. (Back to text.)

58 ‘La figure de l’enfant est si vivante, si animée […] sa carnation, sa pose, son expression tout vous charme’; London, Royal Academy, LAW/5/197: letter from Thomas Jones to Lawrence, 7 December 1827. (Back to text.)

61 Ibid. ., p. 116. (Back to text.)

62 Both works are now in the National Gallery Collection: Eugène Delacroix, Louis‐Auguste Schwiter, 1826–30 (NG3286); John Constable, The Cornfield, 1826 (NG130). (Back to text.)

63 In a letter to Lord Grey following the young Lambton’s death, referenced in Reid 1906, pp. 261–3. (Back to text.)

64 Timbs 1860, pp. 305–6. (Back to text.)

65 Gower 1882, p. 73. (Back to text.)

66 Williams 1831, vol. 2, pp. 363–7. (Back to text.)

67 Unattributed quotation in ibid. , vol. 2, p. 366. (Back to text.)

69 No. 14, displayed in Saloon E, ‘Paintings by Modern Masters’, English School; Catalogue of the Art Treasures 1857, p. 111. (Back to text.)

70 Ireland 1857, pp. 227–8. (Back to text.)

71 ‘The Private Collections of England: No. XXII’, The Athenaeum, 2547, 19 August 1876, pp. 247–9. (Back to text.)

72 The Athenaeum, 3526, 25 May 1895, p. 679. (Back to text.)

73 In 1989 Kenneth Garlick suggested it could be the study for the head of William Henry Pattisson (see no. 634), in the Baltimore Museum of Art, but this has not been subsequently confirmed as the case, so the sketch remains unlocated; Garlick 1989, p. 219. (Back to text.)

74 The Magazine of Art, 1895, pp. 330, 332. (Back to text.)

75 The Athenaeum, 3529, 15 June 1895, p. 778. In 1907, in The Connoisseur, vols 17–18, p. 283, the chief lot was a first state of Samuel Cousins’s well‐known print of Master Lambton, after Lawrence, which made £178 10s. (Back to text.)

76 Illustrated London News, 27 May 1922, p. 20. (Back to text.)

77 Secrest 2004, pp. 199–200; Peltz in Albinson, Funnell and Peltz 2010, p. 251, no. 45. (Back to text.)

78 Most paintings by Sir Thomas Lawrence in the National Gallery Collection are early works by the artist: a full‐length portrait of Queen Charlotte of 1789 (NG4257); a small portrait of John Julius Angerstein (aged about 55), about 1790 (NG6370); a portrait of the Hon. Peniston Lamb of about 1790 (NG6686); and a portrait of the Hon. Emily Mary Lamb dating from 1803 (NG6617). The only later work is a replica made by Lawrence in 1824 of a portrait of Angerstein originally from 1816 (when the sitter was aged over 80) (NG129). (Back to text.)

List of archive references cited

  • London, Royal Academy of Arts, Archive, LAW/4/298: B.W. Procter, letter to Lawrence, [1825]
  • London, Royal Academy of Arts, Archive, LAW/4/351: J.G. Lambton, letter to [Thomas Lawrence] from Lambton Hall, [11 July 1825]
  • London, Royal Academy of Arts, Archive, LAW/5/167: J.G. Lambton, letter to [Thomas Lawrence] from Paris, [21 August 1827]
  • London, Royal Academy of Arts, Archive, LAW/5/190: Cte. De Forbin, letter to [Thomas Lawrence], [16 November 1827]
  • London, Royal Academy of Arts, Archive, LAW/5/197: Thomas Jones, letter to Lawrence, 7 December 1827
  • London, Royal Academy of Arts, Archive, LAW/5/281: B.W. Procter, letter to Lawrence, [1825]

List of references cited

Albinson, Funnell and Peltz 2010
AlbinsonCassandraPeter Funnell and Lucy Peltz, eds, Thomas Lawrence: Regency Power & Brilliance (exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery, London; Yale Center for British Art, New Haven), New Haven and London 2010
Armstrong 1913
ArmstrongWalterSirLawrenceLondon 1913
Athenaeum 1876
The Private Collections of England: No. XXII’, The Athenaeum, 19 August 1876, 2547247–9
Athenaeum 1895a
The Athenaeum, 25 May 1895, 3526679
Athenaeum 1895b
The Athenaeum, 15 June 1895, 3529778
Carlyle 2001
CarlyleLeslieThe Artist’s AssistantLondon 2001
Catalogue of the Art Treasures 1857
Catalogue of the Art Treasures of the United KingdomLondon 1857
Connoisseur 1907
The Connoisseur, 1907, 17–18283
Cove 1991
CoveSarah, ‘Constable’s Oil Painting Materials and Techniques’, in Constable, eds Leslie Parris and Ian Fleming‐Williams (exh. cat. Tate Gallery, London), London 1991, 493–529
Cunningham 1833
CunninghamAllanThe Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors and ArchitectsLondon 1833, 6
Eastaugh et al. 2008
EastaughNicholasValentine WalshTracey Chaplin and Ruth SiddallPigment Compendium. A Dictionary and Optical Microscopy of PigmentsOxford 2008
Field 1835
FieldGeorgeChromatography; or a Treatise on Colours and Pigments, and of their Powers in Painting, &c.London 1835
Garlick 1954
GarlickKennethSir Thomas LawrenceLondon 1954
Garlick 1989
GarlickKennethSir Thomas Lawrence: A Complete Catalogue of the Oil PaintingsOxford 1989
Gent 1828
GentThomasPoemsLondon 1828
Gower 1882
GowerRonald SutherlandLordRomney and LawrenceLondon 1882
Gower 1900
GowerRonald SutherlandLordSir Thomas Lawrence … with a Catalogue of the Artist’s Exhibited and Engraved Workscompiled by Algernon GravesLondon 1900
Harley 1979
HarleyRosamond D., ‘Field’s Manuscripts: Early Nineteenth‐Century Colour Samples and Fading Tests’, Studies in Conservation, 1979, 24275–84
Illustrated London News 1922
Illustrated London News, 27 May 1922, 20
Ireland 1857
IrelandAlexanderThe Art‐Treasures Examiner: A Pictorial, Critical, and Historical Record of the Art Treasures Exhibition at Manchester in 1857Manchester 1857
Kirby, Spring and Higgitt 2007
KirbyJoMarika Spring and Catherine Higgitt, ‘The Technology of Eighteenth‐ and Nineteenth‐Century Red Lake Pigments’, National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 2007, 2869–95
Kühn and Curran 1986
KühnHermann and Mary Curran, ‘Chrome Yellow and Other Chromate Pigments’, in Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook of their History and Characteristics, ed. Robert L. FellerCambridge 1986, 1187–218
La Belle Assemblee 1825
La Belle Assemblée, or Court and Fashionable Magazine, June 1825, 6
Leeds Arts Calendar 1954
Leeds Arts Calendar, Spring 1954, 25
Levey 1979
LeveyMichaelSir Thomas Lawrence (exh.cat. National Portrait Gallery, London), London 1979
Levey 2005
LeveyMichaelSir Thomas LawrenceNew Haven and London 2005
Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review 1825
The Literary Chronicle and Weekly Review, 7 May 1825, 301
London Magazine and Review 1825
The London Magazine and Review, 1 June 1825, 267
Lyons 2019
LyonsRebecca, ‘Princely Splendour and Posterity: George IV’s Patronage and Display of Portraiture’, in George IV: Art & Spectacle, eds Kate Heard and Kathryn Jones (exh. cat. The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, London; The Queen’s Gallery, Palace of Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh), London 2019, 47–59
Magazine of Art 1895
Hepworth‐DixonMarion, in Magazine of Art, 1895, 330 & 332
Monthly Magazine 1825
Fine Arts – The Exhibition, Royal Academy’, The Monthly Magazine, 1825, 433
New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal 1825
The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, 1825, 302
Noon 2003
NoonPatrickConstable to Delacroix: British Art and the French Romantics, 1820–1840 (exh. cat. Tate Britain, London), London 2003
Noon, Blayney Brown and Riding 2003
NoonPatrickwith David Blayney Brown and Christine RidingCrossing the Channel: British and French Painting in the Age of RomanticismLondon 2003
Reid 1906
ReidStuart J.Life and Letters of the First Earl of Durham, 1792–1840London 1906, 1
Reynolds 2014
ReynoldsKimberley, ‘Perceptions of Childhood’, Discovering Literature: Romantics & Victorianshttps://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/perceptions-of-childhood, accessed 7 August 2023, 15 May 2014
Riding 2022
RidingChristineGainsborough’s Blue Boy: The Return of a British Icon (exh. cat. The National Gallery, London), London 2022
Rose 1989
RoseClareChildren’s Clothes since 1750London 1989
Secrest 2004
SecrestMeryleDuveen: A Life in ArtChicago 2004
Shawe‐Taylor 2013
Shawe‐TaylorDesmond, ‘The Waterloo Chamber before the Battle of Waterloo’, in Placing Faces: The Portrait and the English Country House in the Long Eighteenth Century, eds Gill PerryKate Retford and Jordan VibertManchester 2013, 244–63
Simon 2010
SimonJacob, ed., Thomas Lawrence’s Studios and Studio Practicehttps://www.npg.org.uk/research/programmes/artists-their-materials-and-suppliers/thomas-lawrences-studios-and-studio-practice, accessed 8 November 2023, London 2010
Stendhal 1828
Stendhal, ed., ‘Salon de 1827’, Revue TrimestrielleParis July–October 1828
Timbs 1860
TimbsJohnAnecdote Biography; Or, Scenes and Events in the Lives of Distinguished Persons, Chronologically ArrangedLondon 1860
Times 1825
The Times, 3 May 1825
Townsend 1993
TownsendJoyce, ‘The Materials of J.M.W. Turner: Pigments’, Studies in Conservation, 1993, 38231–54
Whitley 1930
WhitleyWilliam T.Art in England 1821–1837Cambridge 1930
Williams 1831
WilliamsD.E.The Life and Correspondence of Sir Thomas Lawrence Kt2 volsLondon 1831
Winter and West FitzHugh 2007
WinterJohn and Elisabeth West FitzHugh, ‘Pigments Based on Carbon’, in Artists’ Pigments. A Handbook of their History and Characteristics, ed. Barbara H. BerrieLondon 2007, 41–37

List of exhibitions cited

Amsterdam 1936
Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum, Twee Eeuwen Engelsche Kunst / Two Centuries of British Art, 4 July–4 October
Berkeley, Memphis and Omaha 1995–6
Berkeley, University Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, University of California; Memphis, Dixon Gallery and Gardens; Omaha, Joslyn Art Museum, The New Child: British Art and the Origins of Modern Childhood, 1730–1830, 23 August–19 November 1995; 10 December 1995–4 February 1996; 9 March–5 May 1996
London 1825
London, Royal Academy of Arts, The Exhibition of the Royal Academy, 1825, 2 May–9 July 1825
London 1830
London, British Institution, Pall Mall, Works of British Artists Placed in the Gallery of the British Institution, 1830
London 1868
London, South Kensington Museum, National Portraits, 13 April 1868
London, Grafton Galleries 1895
London, Grafton Galleries, Fair Children, 1895
London, Royal Academy 1895
London, Royal Academy of Arts, Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters, and by Deceased Masters of the British School, 7 January–16 March 1895
London 1904
London, Royal Academy, Exhibition of Works by the Old Masters and Deceased Masters of the British School, Including a Special Selection of Works by Sir Thomas Lawrence, P.R.A., 4 January–12 March 1904
London 1931
London, M. Knoedler & Co., English Eighteenth Century Portraits of Children, 24 April–23 May 1931
London 1951–2
London, Royal Academy of Arts, The First Hundred Years of the Royal Academy, 1769–1868, 8 December 1951–9 March 1952
London 1968–9
London, Royal Academy of Arts, Royal Academy of Arts Bicentenary Exhibition, 14 December 1968–2 March 1969
London 1979–80
London, National Portrait Gallery (at 15 Carlton House Terrace), Sir Thomas Lawrence 1769–1830, 9 November 1979–16 March 1980 (exh. cat.: Levey 1979)
London, Minneapolis and New York 2003–4
London, Tate Britain; Minneapolis, The Minneapolis Institute of Arts; New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Constable to Delacroix: British Art and the French Romantics, 5 February–11 May 2003; 8 June–7 September 2003; 8 October 2003–4 January 2004; Minneapolis and New York editions entitled Crossing the Channel: British and French Painting in the Age of Romanticism
London and New Haven 2010–11
London, National Portrait Gallery; New Haven, Yale Center for British Art, Thomas Lawrence; Regency Power and Brilliance, 21 October 2010–23 January 2011; 24 February–5 June 2011
Manchester 1857
Manchester, Old Trafford, Exhibition Hall, Art Treasures of the United Kingdom Collected at Manchester in 1857, 5 May–17 October 1857
Manchester 1957
Manchester, City of Manchester Art Gallery, Art Treasures Centenary: European Old Masters, 30 October–31 December 1957
Newcastle 1887
Newcastle upon Tyne, Royal Mining Engineering and Industrial Exhibition, Royal Jubilee Year, 11 May–28 October 1887
Newcastle 1929
Newcastle upon Tyne, Palace of Arts, North East Coast Exhibition, 14 May–26 October 1929
Paris 1827
Paris, Musée Royal des Arts, Paris Salon de 1827, 4 November 1827
Wembley 1924–5
Wembley, London, Palace of Arts, British Empire Exhibition, 23 April–1 November 1924; 9 May–31 October 1925

About this version

Version 1, generated from files NG_2024__16.xml dated 30/08/2024 and database__16.xml dated 20/09/2024 using stylesheet 16_teiToHtml_externalDb.xsl dated 30/07/2024. Document created from design‐ready Word document and prepared for digital publication.

Cite this entry

Permalink (this version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/01AC-000B-0000-0000
Permalink (latest version)
https://data.ng.ac.uk/
Chicago style
McMahon, Mary, Paul Ackroyd, Rachel Billinge, Marta Melchiorre and David Peggie. "NG6692, Portrait of Charles William Lambton (‘The Red Boy’)". Version 1, September 20, 2024. https://data.ng.ac.uk/01AC-000B-0000-0000.
Harvard style
McMahon, Mary, Ackroyd, Paul, Billinge, Rachel, Melchiorre, Marta and Peggie, David (2024) NG6692, Portrait of Charles William Lambton (‘The Red Boy’). Version 1. Available at: https://data.ng.ac.uk/01AC-000B-0000-0000 (Accessed: 11 November 2024).
MHRA style
McMahon, Mary, Paul Ackroyd, Rachel Billinge, Marta Melchiorre and David Peggie, NG6692, Portrait of Charles William Lambton (‘The Red Boy’), version 1 (2024) <https://data.ng.ac.uk/01AC-000B-0000-0000> [accessed: 11 November 2024]