MEMOIRS
OF
WILLIAM BECKFORD.
CHAPTER 1.
DERIVATION OF THE BECKFORD FAMILY – THE ELDER BECKFORD.
NOT far from Tewkesbury, in Gloucestershire, there is a parish called
Beckford, from whence the family of that name, recorded in the present
work, is generally
supposed to be derived. Before the time of Edward the Confessor, the
manor is said to have been the property of the English crown, and,
antiquaries contend, was originally denominated Bekeford, or Beceford,
after the
name
of a passage or ferry which once existed over the little river Carron,
which passes through what is now called Beckford parish, and falls
into the Shakespeare
Avon, near Tewkesbury, where, it may be recollected, the Avon [2] falls
into the Severn. Beke, or Bece, is said to signify a stream of water,
an etymology
not at all improbable, more particularly as the adjoining parish formerly
had the name of Bekeshore, or the shore of the stream.
It would also appear that this manor once belonged to the Chamberlain
of Normandy. About the time of Henry I., from becoming royal property
in the
time of the Conqueror,
it was granted by the Chamberlain, to whom it afterwards fell, to the Abbey
of St. Barbe en Auge. This was one of the alien priories, suppressed
by Henry VI.,
presented to Eton College by that monarch, and subsequently, by Edward
IV., to Fotheringhay priory or nunnery, according to Tanner's Notitiæ.
That a family named Beckford, or Bekeford, was settled in the county
before the Norman conquest, as before stated, cannot be disproved.
Robert de Bekeford
is
mentioned early in the twelfth century, as making certain grants in the
vicinity. In the reign of Richard II. the name of Alexander de Beckford
occurs in a
grant [3] of lands in an adjoining parish, little more than fourscore
years afterwards.
A Sir William Beckford fought at Bosworth Field, where he is supposed to
have fallen, combatting for Richard III.
From the day of the battle of Bosworth Field a cloud appears to hang
over a family that had struggled in behalf of the unsuccessful against
the successful
usurper.
The alternative of a peaceful obscurity was all that remained to the survivors
to ensure their personal safety. Kindness to his foes, though vanquished,
was
not, any more than pecuniary generosity, a virtue of Henry VII., save when
the argument of good policy overcame his naturally coarse and avaricious
character, it is probable the lands of the Beckford family were thus irretrievably
lost.
In the reign of Edward VI., the lands in the parish of Beckford were presented
by the crown to Sir Richard Lee; nor are there any traces of the family
from that time until the name of PETER BECKFORD occurs in 1702, in the
reign of
William III., as lieutenant-governor of Jamaica, the governor being William
Selwyn. The
battle of Bosworth Field was fought in 1485. [4] That there is a blank
of two hundred and seventeen years in the history of the family to be supplied
is
thus clear, if it be the same family.
King William having appointed William Selwyn to be the governor of the
island of Jamaica, he died soon after his arrival. The council of the island
then
elected Peter Beckford, Esq., to act as lieutenant-governor in Mr. Selwyn's
room, and
he governed the island at King William's death in 1702, and also proclaimed
Queen Anne. He was president of the council and commander-in-chief of the
army. Besides
distinguishing himself against the French, his great opulence gained him
a superiority over most of the planters. T. Handasyd, Esq., was sent out
from
England as lieutenant-governor
soon afterwards. Mr. Beckford died suddenly, in a fit of passion, in 1710,
and left behind him two sons, Peter, the elder son, Speaker of [5] the
House of Assembly
for the island, and Thomas. He was twice married. His first wife, BRIDGET,
died in 1691; his second, ANNE BALLARD, in 1696 (the names of Colonels
Ballard and
Beeston occur in the island as early as 1662). PETER BECKFORD the son,
who had become Speaker of the House of Assembly died in 1735; having married
Bathsua, (daughter and coheir of Colonel Julines Hering,) who died in 1750,
and he left
issue:
CHARLES, who died an infant, 1677.
PRISCILLA, born 1675.
ELIZABETH, born 1678.
THOMAS BECKFORD was killed by a gentleman whom he had offended, in 1731.
Thos. Beckford married, first, MARY TOLDERBY, and, secondly, MARY, heiress
of Thomas
Ballard, of whom mention will presently be made again.
PETER BECKFORD, the above Speaker of the House of Assembly of Jamaica,
had thirteen children, viz.
PETER, who died unmarried in 1737, leaving his next brother, William, his
heir.
WILLIAM (afterwards of Fonthill), Lord Mayor of London in 1762 and in 1770;
father of the subject of these memoirs, who married, 1756, first, MRS.
MARCH, widow
of Francis March, Esq., by whom he had one child, a daughter; secondly,
MARIA, daughter and coheir of the hon. George Hamilton, M.P. for Wells,
who died
1798, leaving one son, who died 1844.
[6] RICHARD BECKFORD M.P. for Bristol, a barrister, who died unmarried,
at Lyons, in 1756. He was an alderman of London for the ward of Farringdon,
and left his
brother, William, his heir.
NATHANIEL BECKFORD, who died unmarried 1739.
JULINES BECKFORD of Stapleton Dorset, M.P. for Salisbury, who died 1765.
He married Elizabeth, heiress of Solomon Ashley, of Ledgers Ashby, co.
Northampton, who
died 1762.
FRANCIS BECKFORD, of Basing, died 1768. Twice married, his fist wife, Albinia,
daughter of the Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven, who died 1754; secondly,
Susanna, daughter of Richard Love, of Basing.
ANNE BECKFORD, married to George Ellis, Chief justice of Jamaica, died
1745.
THOMAS, a twin with Richard, died young.
GEORGE died young.
PHILLIS and BATHSHUA, died unmarried.
ELIZABETH, died 1791; married first, Thos. Howard Earl of Effingham, who
died 1763; secondly, Sir George Howard, K.B., field-marshal, died 1796.
[7] WILLIAM BECKFORD, jun., deceased in 1844, the only son of William,
the lord mayor, by Maria Hamilton, married the daughter of the Earl of
Aboyne,
the Lady
Margaret Gordon, who died in 1786, and left issue.
MARGARET MARIA ELIZABETH, married to Major-General James Orde. She died
in 1818, leaving two daughters, Margaret Juliana Maria, born 1814; and
Susannah
Jemima
Frances, born 1816.
SUSANNAH EUPHEMIA, married to the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, 1810, who
had issue:
WILLIAM ALEXANDER, the present Duke of Hamilton and Brandon (1858), born
1811; and
SUSAN, born 1814, married to the Duke of Newcastle, and afterwards divorced.
This might suffice to exhibit the early position of the subject of this
memoir; but the reader may be gratified by a brief mention of the descendants
of
the brethren of the celebrated lord mayor, as they stood a few years ago.
The brothers,
Peter, Richard, Nathaniel, Thomas, and George, died without issue. Julines,
of Stapleton, left Peter Beckford, M.P. for Morpeth, [8] who died in 1811;
having
married Louisa, daughter of Lord Rivers, who died 1791. Peter Beckford
left issue, a son and daughter; the latter, Frances, married Henry Seymer,
of
Handford, Dorset;
the former, William Horace Beckford, of Stapleton heir presumptive to the
barony of Rivers of Sudely Castle, who married Frances Hall Rigby, of Mistley
Hall,
Essex, and had issue, George and Horace Beckford; and two daughters, Frances
and Harriet.
Francis Beckford, of Basing, had two sons, Thomas and Francis Love; and
one daughter, Charlotte, married to John Middleton, of Weybridge. Thomas
died
unmarried. Francis
married Joanna Leigh, of Northcourt, Isle of Wight, and had six sons and
one daughter: Francis Love, born 1789; William, born 1790; John Leigh,
born 1791;
Carleton, born 1794; Charles Douglas, 1797; Thomas, who died young; and
Harriet, married to Andrew Arcedecne.
Anne Beckford the lord mayor's sister, had issue George, John, William
Beckford and Robert Julines Ellis; and a daughter, who died unmarried.
George Ellis,
of Jamaica, who died [9] in 1754, married, first, Susanna Charlotte Long,
who, on
his decease, married Sir D. Lindsey, Bart. John, who died 1782, married
Elizabeth Palmer. William, who died about 1782, married Susanna Jackson,
relict of
William Addenbrooke. Robert Julines died unmarried. From George descended
George Ellis,
of Sunning Hill, who died in 1815. John, leaving John, born 1788, and Charles
Parker, born 1794 and three daughters, Eliza, born 1791; Caroline, 1793,
married to J. P. Carew, of Antony, Cornwall; and Antonetta, born 1803.
John, who died
1782, also left C. Rose Ellis, of Claremont, Surrey, M.P. for Seaford,
married the heiress of Lord Hervey, and died 1802, leaving issue, Charles,
Lord Howard
de Walden, born 1799; Augustus Frederick, born 1800 and Eliza Georgiana,
born 1802. William Beckford Ellis had issue, William Beckford, who died
unmarried; Robert, and Anne, who died 1782. Robert Julines and Bathsua
Ellis died unmarried.
Elizabeth Beckford, married to Lord Effingham, had issue, Thomas, Richard,
Elizabeth, Anne, Maria, and Frances Hering. Thomas [10] died, governor
of Jamaica, 1791.
Richard, the last earl, died, s. p., 1816. Elizabeth married Reginald Courtenay,
Bishop of Exeter, and died 1815 Anne married Christopher Carleton, died
1787; Maria married Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester, who died 1808; Frances
Hering
died unmarried.
Of the six children of Elizabeth, the sister of the Lord Mayor Beckford,
only two left issue; Elizabeth, who married the Bishop of Exeter, and Maria,
who
married Lord Dorchester. The descendants of Elizabeth by the bishop were
William, M.P.,
born 1777, who married Harriet Leslie, daughter of Sir Lucas Pepys, Bart.,
and had male issue, William Reginald, Henry Hugh, and Charles Leslie: Thomas
Peregrine,
M.P., born 1782, married Anne Mayow, and had issue, Thomas Peregrine, born
1810; Reginald, 1813; George Henry, 1814; Francis, 1816 Anne Mayow, 1807;
Elizabeth Howard, 1808; and Mary, 1811. Elizabeth, a maid of honour to
Queen Charlotte,
born 1779; Catherine, married to the Rev. E. Berens, born 1781; and Anne,
born, 1784. Francis Charlotte, married to the Rev. K Bouverie.
[11] Maria had, by Lord Dorchester, Guy and Thomas Carleton, who died s.
p.; Christopher, who died in 1806, married Priscilla Belford, and left
issue, Arthur
Henry, Lord Dorchester, born 1805; Maria, who married Lord Bolton; George,
killed at Bergen-op-Zoom, 1814, who left issue by Henrietta King, of Askham
Hall; Guy
Carleton, and others. Frances, who married the Rev. J. Orde, and died in
1812, leaving issue. Charles, Dudley, and, lastly, Richard, married to
Frances Louisa
Horton, of Catton.
It will be recollected that Peter Beckford, from whom all the foregoing
are descendants, had a brother named Thomas, who was killed in 1731, having
married,
first, Mary
Tolderby, of the island of Jamaica, and, secondly, Mary, daughter of Thomas
Ballard. By this last-named lady he had Ballard, who died in Jamaica,
1760, having married
Anne, daughter of John Clark, governor of New York; Thomas, who married
Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Pollnitz Byndlosse, of Jamaica, brother-in-law
to the
buccaneer, Sir H. Morgan; he died 1746 and, lastly, Charles, born 1712.
Of these, Ballard,
who died in 1764, married Frances Buckner, [12] and left one daughter,
Mary, who married James Johnstone. Thomas Ballard, the son of Thomas, died
1747,
s. p.; Philip, the second son, died without issue; Matthew died without
issue; Jane
Mary, married T. Hay, Esq., and died 1754. Mary Ballard, sole heiress of
Thomas Beckford, married, first, John Palmer, of Jamaica, and died 1757,
s. p.; and,
secondly, Edward Long, of Aldermaston, Berks; she died in 1797, leaving
three suits, Edward Beeston, born 1763 married Mary daughter of J. Tomlinson,
M.P.
for Steyning, and left two sons, Edward Noel and Henry Lawes, and a daughter
named Mary; Robert Ballard; Charles Beckford, of Woolhampton, born 1771,
who married Fanny Monro Tucker, having issue, Charles Edward, born 1796;
Catherine,
who married Richard Dawkins, by whom she had issue, Edward James, Juliana
Charlotte, Emily, and Caroline. Charlotte, who married Sir G. Pocock, Bart.,
of Hart,
by whom she had George Edward, Edward Osborne, Mary Anne Sophia, Charlotte
Catherine
Elizabeth, and Augustus. Elizabeth, who married Lord Molyneux Howard, brother
of the Duke of Norfolk, by whom she had Henry Long, of Greystock [13] Castle;
and four daughters, Henrietta, Isabella, Charlotte, and Juliana.
It is unnecessary to pursue these details to a later period. It is to be
feared that from 1655, when the expedition of Penn and Venables conquered
Jamaica
under Cromwell, to the decease of Peter Beckford, Lieut-governor of the
Island in 1702,
nothing more can be now known than is here detailed. Whether Lieut-Governor
Beckford went out with a colonel's commission from England, or had his
parentage in the
island from one who had proceeded there from home afterwards, cannot be
ascertained. One thing is certain that the affairs of the island were very
irregularly
carried on during the last half of the seventeenth century. The island
became the rendezvous
of the most profligate and lawless adventurers that ever roved over the
ocean. It was there they disposed of the spoils of robberies and murders,
dissipated
the proceeds of their cruel piracies in every species of profligacy, and
were so little exposed to reprobation, that one of the most atrocious monsters
in
human shape, whose adventures are detailed in the well-known "History
of the Buccaneers," was knighted by [14] Charles II., and was thrice
Lieutenant-Governor of the Island; the first time in 1675, the second time
in 1678, and lastly in
1680. The crimes of the man thus preferred make the blood run cold to read
them. From hence may be inferred the character of some whom the colonists
harboured
during the first half a century after the conquest of the island, and by
whose lavish waste they were enabled to enrich themselves.
However the foregoing circumstances may really have occurred, it is certain
that the family of Beckford had large possessions in Jamaica, and were
opulent and
influential there before the commencement of the last century. Beckford
Town, in the county of Cornwall, in Westmoreland parish, near Savannah
le Mar,
was the property of Richard Beckford. Esher was one of the estates of William
Beckford,
situated in Ballard's valley, and two estates named the Whitehall and Frontier
estates, were the property of Ballard Beckford. Of the large possessions
of most of the family in Jamaica, therefore, there can be no question,
and they
appear
to have belonged to it at an early period after the oc- [15] cupation of
the island by England. Peter Beckford left behind him great wealth. Besides
mortgages
and similar investments, he had no less than twenty-four plantations and
twelve hundred slaves of his own in the island. He was father of the member
for the
city of London.
It will now be proper, following the direct course of narration, to return
to William Beckford the elder, of Fonthill, second son, and Speaker of
the Jamaica
House of Assembly, previously to going at some length into the more immediate
subject. He was scarcely less remarkable in his day, particularly as a
public character and supporter of the greatest minister that ever ruled
the destinies
of the British Empire, if boldness, eloquence, and success, be qualities
attached to an individual fulfilling that high character, at a moment when
the liberty
of the subject was perilled, and England continually wade the victim of
the notorious predisposition of the House of Hanover for its paternal domains.
He was sent from Jamaica to England at the age of fourteen, and was immediately
put to [16] school at Westminster, where he devoted himself to his studies
so ardently as to obtain repeatedly the applause of Dr. Friend, the chief
master, a teacher in those days of considerable reputation. At this school
young Beckford
formed an acquaintance with many individuals who became noted in after-life
for
talent or genius. His intimacy began here with Lord Mansfield, Dr. Johnson,
Bishop of Gloucester, and Lord Kinnoul, the three last then known in the
school as "the
triumvirate," from being the best scholars and makers of extempore verses.
Here young Beckford translated several of the classical authors, which he wrote
out in a fair hand, and preserved until they were consumed by the fire at the
old mansion of Fonthill.
It is probable that being a second son, and his next younger brother, Richard,
being a barrister, he was not without some professional pursuit from the
time he left school to his father's decease. The latter died in 1737, only
two years
before his elder brother, to whom William became heir, as well as of his
brother Richard, M.P. for Bristol. By the latter he obtained ten thousand
a-year. It
appears he remained in [17] Europe, and was here at the time of his father's
decease. He perhaps acted as his agent. It is certain he was in Europe
for a good part of the time, if not all, from a singular event in the history
of his
life. He was induced to visit Holland, where he was deeply smitten with
a
beautiful girl, the daughter of a shopkeeper of Leyden. He was well aware
that his family
would not consent to his marriage with the object of his affections, towards
whom there can be no doubt of his sincere regard, and of his determination
to marry her the moment it was in his power to do so. He had a son by her,
which
he kept a secret until his father's decease, having brought her over, and
placed her in an establishment suitable to his rank and fortune. His arrangements
had not long been completed, when he was obliged to go to Jamaica in consequence
of his father's death, to arrange his family affairs, He was detained above
a
year. At the expiration of that time he returned to London, intending to
marry
the object of his cherished affection, all obstacles to a union being removed.
On his arrival he made the painful discovery of her unfaithfulness. It
was no com- [18] mon example of feminine infidelity that struck him down.
His
beloved mistress whom he intended to make his bride, he discovered to be
far gone in
the family way by a mulatto page, in his service, only sixteen years of
age. This incident so much affected him, that it was thought at one time
he would
not recover from the state of despondency into which he was thrown by this
discovery.
Fears were even entertained for his life. He ultimately recovered, settled
an annual sum of money upon the unfaithful one, and sent her back to Holland.
Mr. Beckford was chosen member of parliament both for London and Petersfield
in 1747. He preferred sitting for London, but presented four hundred pounds
to Petersfield for the purpose of aiding to pave the streets, in the way
of acknowledgment.
In 1753 he managed to get his brother, Richard, returned for Bristol, in
the face of a strong Opposition; Richard happened to be in Jamaica at the
time.
The speeches of Mr. Beckford in the House Of Commons were energetic and
full of spirit upon all those questions in which he felt an interest. He
always
made a boast that he was [19] no courtier, and that he disdained being
a hanger-on upon the smiles of a throne.
When the Hessian and Hanoverian hireling soldiers were so unconstitutionally
introduced into England by the ministry, in 1755, Mr. Beckford supported
the elder Pitt in the speeches he made in opposition to that measure. In
1759,
he spoke against the German war, plainly declaring it was more onerous
to the country
than the yoke of an enemy. It was clear he had a well-founded horror of
the connections we have ever so unfortunately formed with German states. "We
pay for every thing, too, at a most exorbitant rate. Here, in these last
accounts, I see a
charge for a drawbridge valued at eighty thousand pounds. I have in my
pocket a letter from one who understands such matters, who declares, that,
between man
and man, it is at the utmost worth no more than seven thousand. However,
the overplus will be a tolerable perquisite [sic] in the pocket of the
hungry foreigner.
God help us! we must pay for all!"
During the election of 1761, the public papers were filled with encomiums
upon this patriotic [20] member. The following epigram was largely circulated
on
the occasion: –
"
Augusta, see! behold Pitt's generous friend,
Whom all the patriot virtues recommend;
Hear every tongue proclaim him good and great,
Rendering the hero and the man complete!
He was opposed to every distinction between the natives of these islands,
and did not approve of those who carried the invidious marks too far. This
had
reference more particularly to the Scotch, to whom he was somewhat partial,
while several
of his political friends were of an opposite feeling, owing to the selfish
intrigues of Lord Bute.
The vast fortune of the Lord Mayor Beckford permitted him to provide for
many Londoners, whom he sent over to Jamaica, where they advanced to opulence
though
before they were well nigh destitute. In fact, his entire career was no
less singular than active. He reconciled many characters in himself which
seemed
almost incompatible. He was a planter, member of parliament, magistrate
and alderman;
yet he was a man of excellent taste, a [21] country gentleman, and somewhat
dissipated. He possessed few of the external graces, as far as expression
and manner were
concerned. His understanding was sound, and his knowledge of British politics,
especially as they affected trade and commerce, was very extensive. He
was stedfast in his principles, and never to be charged with inconsistency.
His
manner was
not agreeable, but this did not arise so much from ill-temper, or a bad
disposition, as from the ardent and impetuous turn of his mind, to the
fervour of which
he was accustomed to give way. This impetuosity was accompanied by a voice
no way
harmonious, and by a vehemence of action, which interfered with his delivery
as a public speaker, and even inflicted its mischief upon his private conversation,
so that it did not afford the pleasure which the communications of one
possessing his knowledge and abilities might be supposed to confer. In
the House of
Commons he sometimes provoked risibility, and at other times was tedious,
from no other
cause than a neglect of digesting and well arranging the matter he delivered.
Notwithstanding such disadvantages in the se- [22] nate, he never spoke
without conveying sound information to the House upon those subjects on
which he
ventured to address it. He had no power of touching the heart, or moving
the passions
- he could not put an opposing member to the hush, though he did sometimes
contrive to silence an opponent.
Up to this time the office of the chief magistracy of the city of London
had been, for the most part, filled by merchants, and individuals of high
weight
and influence in the commercial community; and but a few cases had occurred
comparatively when it was otherwise. The residence of the leading mercantile
men had been within
the city walls, while those who possessed residences in the country had
them, for the most part, too far beyond the suburbs to go to business and
return
the same day to dinner. Great was the hospitality then displayed by the
wealthy citizens.
The leading Sir Balaams of the Exchange had but a few of them began to
move to the westward, until the reigns of the first Brunswicks; Bloomsbury
and
Soho being
then the fashionable squares. Grosvenor was only building between 1730
and 1740. [23] The characters of the city men in office were many of them
highly
respectable
in business and connections. The chief magistrate had been sometimes a
privy councillor of the crown; and some of the aldermen had sat in parliament
for
other commercial cities. The traditions of the court and royalty within
the walls had
then some weight in estimating civic importance not only within, as now,
but beyond Temple Bar. The traditions of ages do not become oblivious without
the
lapse of a considerable interval of time; fragment after fragment fall
and disappear, and the long shadows of the ruins themselves are no longer
seen
in the sunset
of their age. The influence of the city had been once deservedly great
in public affairs. Many of the nobility had had residences within the civic
limits; and
while it remained eminent for its trade it was the haunt of the high-minded,
and the great merchants and bankers, in place of being merely the place
of
their offices. London proper, now dwindled to a circumference of offices
and shops,
with a decreasing resident population of no mark, serves only to exhibit
the importance that tradition can bestow on the [24] fleshless skeletons
of perishing
recollections. The great merchants and bankers and the wealthy speculators,
have no craving for the honors coveted by their class in the days of the
Henrys and
the maiden queen. The honors have fallen into the hands of those who, in
the social and commercial scale, are of no note, but at the entertainments
to which,
from the memory of the past, the ministers of the crown attend us if to
take a convenient opportunity for saying something desirable through the
newspapers.
This, attended with some compliment to the host for his cheer once or twice
in a season, comprises all that can now recal [sic] the civic glory of
the past. The real
city occupies not more than a sixteenth of the ground on which the metropolis
of England stands; and the sway of its chief magistrate is limited to a
spot where the dwellings are continually metamorphosing into warehouses
and similar
conveniences; so, that, while the stranger would talk of the vastness of
London, - and the foreigner is astounded at its riches and magnitude, -
he is little
aware of the increasing insignificance of London so named; and that its
elective [25] monarchy excites no regard beyond limits comparatively as
insignificant
as its power.
Never had the city of London, and its political consequences, been regarded
by the court otherwise than with that respect which naturally arose from
its traditions,
and the honourable part it had taken in behalf of the constitutional government
of the country. Under the two first princes of the house of Brunswick,
support was given to princes who conceded to the free principles of the
country they
had come to rule, all that could be desired; things went on peaceably,
and the citizens had no collision with the throne, for there was no attempt
made
to encroach
on the popular freedom. On the accession of George III., a prince of arbitrary
ideas, obstinate in disposition, and labouring much longer, than was generally
suspected, under mental delusion, he at once placed public affairs in the
hands of Lord Bute, whose gratitude consisted in endeavouring to carry
out the royal
will against the feeling of the nation; and thus the crown, for the first
time after the Hanover succession, came into collision with the citizens
and their
authorities. Lord Chatham, who had [26] raised his country to a higher
pitch of glory than any minister had done before him, had resigned; and
the ministry
involved itself in the most impolitic and unjustifiable collision with
the people. It was at this period that Mr. Beckford had the audacity to
make
a stand in the
city against the northern favorite of George III.
From that time the courtiers and city authorities grew more shy of each
other. The later entertainments given by Beckford were most distinctly
marked by
their party bearing and the consequence was, the further insulation of
the citizens
from the crown as the latter undervalued, or contemned, all that partook
of a popular character. Persisting in the same perverse principles, the
American war
was followed up, and stimulated by every effort of the king to reduce the
colonists
to servitude; the monarch having declared, he would sooner lay down his
crown than make peace with America as an independent state.
The publication of the correspondence of the king with Lord North, subsequently
proved that the latter was less to blame than was before [27] supposed.
The Earl of Chatham and his friends, early resisted the taxation of America,
which led
to the unhappy war, but in vain. The old constitutional nobility of England
was buried under an avalanche of new creations by George III., to the number
of fifty-nine
in twenty-five years; more than one quarter of the then existing House
of
Lords. The prerogative and executive power of the crown was thus endeavoured
to be
raised paramount over all other interests.
The political dispositions of the city and the court may be thus accounted
for, as well as the cessation of cordiality between the ministry and the
authorities there. Beckford, an alderman of Billingsgate, and his brother
Richard, of Farringdon
- one in parliament for London, the other for Bristol - were both political
connections.
Chatham. and his friends were supported against the court; and the court
leading the people of fashion, its friends deserted the Mansion-house entertainments.
The great day of civic glory may be said to have departed soon after that
period.
The Beckfords and Harleys were political partizans, and the city [28] became
the rendezvous of their respective colors. The old prestige of queens selected
from the daughters of citizens, and princes dwelling within the walls,
had long ceased to be a stimulus to hope or to ambition.
It was in 1758 that Beckford served the office of sheriff for the city,
being at the same time one of its representatives in parliament. His entertainments
were splendid as sheriff. When he was elected Lord Mayor, the first time
against his own consent, he was contented with his influence in the city.
The civic
chair could add neither dignity nor reputation. He had been member of parliament
for
London from 1747, He gave no less than four entertainments, having been
sworn
in Lord Mayor Nov. 9, 1762 these had not been equalled in the city before,
from the time of Henry VIII., in splendour and extent of hospitality. He
entertained on one occasion the Emperor of Germany and the King of Denmark
accompanied
by
the Dukes of York and Cambridge. The costly magnificence he displayed astonished
the public. He was himself remarkably moderate in eating and drinking,
always living with great [29] temperance, and hence somewhat out of place
in city
epicurism.
Beckford's election to the civic chair the first time was when Lord Bute
had succeeded in undermining the most successful administration that had
ever wielded
the destinies of England. Justice was never done to Beckford's zeal and
merit in behalf of the freedom of the subject. Having no pursuit in the
way of
trade or commerce, and fond of the society of his friends, he felt his
election to
the civic chair a sacrifice both of leisure and private feeling. The solution
of his acceptance of it at all was the desire to serve his friends to the
utmost, and to direct towards their interests in the state the important
influence
of the city. His close intimacy with Mr. Pitt, afterwards Earl of Chatham,
as well
as with Earl Temple was ardent and enduring. Three times returned for the
city to parliament, he uniformly gave his support to the popular minister,
it being
notorious at this time that the court found its great supporters among
place-hunters, and those who had anything to gain, the wealthier individuals
supporting
the independent interest, or the country, rather than the court.
[30] Rich, independent, and professing liberal opinions, he was thus constantly
found in opposition to the favourites of George III. During his parliamentary
services, it was always conceded to him, that his views were those of a
man of high integrity: there was no shuffling or evasion in his character.
He
would never canvass his London constituency. Upon his second election he
addressed
the London livery as follows:
“
Friends and Fellow Citizens -
"You have again been pleased to elect me one of your representatives, with
three very worthy gentlemen, in order to transact your business in parliament.
I look upon this as the greatest honor that could be conferred upon me. I never
have desired nor ever shall desire any other honor or title, than to be a private
gentleman, acting as one of your representatives, a free and independent part
in parliament.
"I look upon this honor the more, because, as you are sensible, I have never
personally solicited your votes and interest. I can assure you, gentlemen, it
was not through any want of respect towards the livery of London; for there is
no [31] man living that regards and reverences it more than I do; but I thought
it more becoming and respectful in me, to leave to the independent livery the
free choice of its members.
"I have been sensible, gentlemen, that many things have been alleged against
me. From mistaken notions I have been represented as a man of arbitrary and despotic
principles. I therefore take this opportunity of declaring, in the face of the
livery of London, that my principles have ever been, and ever will be, to support
the civil and religious liberties of this country - you see, gentlemen, I speak
my mind freely. A decent freedom is the first privilege of a member of parliament,
and thereby I hope I gave no offence. I am sure I never intended to give any,
yet I am certain that while I have sat in parliament, I have given offence. I
declare thus publicly in regard to this point, that I never said anything against
men, I spoke only against measures. The opposition I have sometimes made, was
wholly to measures, and not to men. I have felt, as you all know, for the three
first days' poll, that resentment operated much stronger than friendship; but
I found that [32] the friendship of the livery was even stronger than the resentment
I encountered - the poll shows it.
“It will be an honor to me to proceed in the same manner I have already
done, declaring publicly to every man, that I have no kind of enmity whatever
to any particular persons, who, I daresay, have made their opposition to me from
a conviction that I have been wrong. You belong, gentlemen, to the first city
in the kingdom; you are in point of riches, and in point of influence, superior.
Other nations will take an example from your city, I therefore hope that the
same independence which you have shown upon every former occasion, will continue
to exist, and that you will set an example to all the other cities and boroughs
of the kingdom, of that independence and that uncorrupted conduct for which you
have always been renowned.
"In some other places we have had frequent experience that the art of canvassing
has been very different from what it is in London, and therefore I repeat it,
I hope the livery of London will not take it amiss in me that I have not made
to them a personal application. I declare [33] this and would willingly repeat
it - I never did it in my former election, in the election before this - I have
not done it in this election, but it was not out of want of respect, but for
reasons quite the contrary.
"Gentlemen, as our constitution is deficient only in one point, that little
pitiful boroughs send members to parliament on an equality with great cities;
and this is contrary to the maxim, that power should follow property; therefore
it becomes you of the livery of London to be extremely upon your guard, as you
have been upon the present occasion, to choose members that are entirely independent;
and I do most heartily congratulate you upon your present choice of the other
three members. As to myself, I have nothing to say.
"You have upon all occasions, gentlemen, whenever an attack was made upon
the constitution of this kingdom, readily stepped forth and stood in the breach;
you have supported the liberties of the nation with firmness and resolution.
We are now come to times, gentlemen, when there is no occasion for that firmness,
or that resolution; for we have now - praise be to [34] God for it - we have
now a young monarch upon the throne, whose qualities are amiable, and whose resemblance
is exact, in every feature of body and mind, to that great and amiable young
prince, Edward the Sixth. You have a truly patriot king, and therefore have no
occasion to exercise that firmness and resolution which has been demanded on
many other occasions. You have likewise a patriot minister, say a 'patriot' minister,
and therefore it will be your own fault if you are not the happiest people in
Europe.
"I will not, gentlemen, trespass more upon your good nature and indulgence;
I will conclude with a most sincere prayer and hearty wish, that freedom and
independence, and all happiness, may attend this city now and for evermore."
[Next chapter – Back to start page]