Episode 135: William Beckford

Host: Hazel Baker

Hazel is an active Londoner, a keen theatre-goer and qualified  CIGA London tour guide.

She has won awards for tour guiding and is proud to be involved with some great organisations. She is a freeman of the Worshipful Company of Marketors and am an honorary member of The Leaders Council.

Channel 5’s Walking Wartime Britain(Episode 3) and Yesterday Channel’s The Architecture the Railways Built (Series 3, Episode 7). Het Rampjaar 1672, Afl. 2: Vijand Engeland and Arte.fr Invitation au Voyage, À Chelsea, une femme qui trompe énormément.

 

Guest: Ian McDiarmid

Ian McDiarmid qualified as a City of London tour guide in 2017 and has a particular passion for Roman and Medieval history, having in an earlier incarnation studied history at Cambridge and London universities.

He began working life in the early 80s in the City, and has since written extensively on the share and bond markets as a journalist. He loves talking finance and taking people around the narrow alleys where today’s massive trading centre was born.

When not walking and talking, Ian enjoys pottering about in the garden. His expertise is such that he often spends several hours doing this.

Related Podcast Episodes:

Episode 91. Radical MP John Wilkes

Episode 126: Transatlantic Slave Trade and London

Reading List:

Adam Hochschild, Bury the Chains

Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery 

Perry Gauci, William Beckford 

James Walvin, A Short History of Slavery 

Catherine Hall et al., Legacies of British Slave-ownership

Vincent Brown, Tacky’s Revolt 

David Eltis, The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas

Robin Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery

The Atlantic Slave Trade: a Census Philip Curtin

Black and British – a Forgotten History David Olusoga

The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade 1660-1808 David Richardson in The Oxford History of the British Empire:  The Eighteenth Century ed PJ Marshall

The Formation of Caribbean Plantation Society, 1689-1740 Richard Sheridan in The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Eighteenth Century ed PJ Marshall

The Slave Trade Hugh Thomas

Black Ivory James Walvin

Britain’s Slave Empire James Walvin

Transcript:

Hazel Baker:

Hazel: In today’s episode, we are stepping back into 18th century London to meet a man whose name is both prominent and controversial. William Beckford. Born in Jamaica in 1709, Beckford became one of the wealthiest men in Britain through the profits of sugar plantations and enslaved labour. Twice Lord Mayor of London, he built his legacy in the Guildhall on Grand Estates and in Parliament, but at what cost.

With me today is Ian McDiarmid, City of London Guide, who doesn’t shy away from the tough subjects. He’s here to help us unpick the many threads of Beckford’s life from his influence in city politics to the uncomfortable truths behind his wealth. 

Hazel: So if we’re talking about his early life and the wealth, with William Beckford, what do we know about his early life in Jamaica and how did he come to inherit all of it?

Ian: The simple fact is that his father was the largest plantation owner in Jamaica and also the speaker of the Jamaica Parliament. And Bedford’s inheritance is a little bit complicated. not the eldest son. He’s the second son, but his elder brother dies before he does. 

But actually he has to engage in a very long litigation with his mother. But eventually he does get the majority of the states. And, in addition to his inheritance, he has a reputation amongst other plantation owners of being very sharp. There were economies of scale within running plantations, and there is a process whereby the plantations in the Caribbean gradually get bigger. One of the ways that Beckford took advantage of this was that he would lend other plantation owners money through a mortgage secured on their property. And then when they made the payments, he had the reputation for being rather too quick in foreclosing on those mortgages. So he was able to build up his position. Lastly, through his inheritance, by a survey, carried out in 1754, he’s shown as owning some 22,000 acres in Jamaica, making him the largest landowner and 3000 slaves. 

Hazel: Wow, that’s huge. 

Ian: There is a very good book on William Beckford by Perry Gauci, an Oxford historian. It is the book on the subject and Gauci estimates that Beckford’s average income was 14 one 4,000 pounds. Though he Gauci cautions that the figures were very volatile. To give some perspective on what £14,000 meant, about this time, a junior clerk at the Bank of England would be earning around 50 pounds. So we can think of £50 as being the very bottom of the kind of respectable ladder in Georgian England.

So you can just about survive on £50 a year. It is a huge amount. But in addition to this, Beckford Wealth was legendary. There was a famous quote about him from Horace Walpole, which was endlessly repeated, at the time in newspapers and the rest of it. Fonthill, which becomes Beckford’s, English estate in Wiltshire burns down. after this disaster, Waro quotes him saying, oh, I have an odd £50,000 in the drawer. I will build his up again. So Warpole isn’t always the most accurate, but this is the kind of jokey thing that rich people say about their wealth boasting. I think the point about this story is we can’t necessarily rely on the statistics, but it was repeated so it was given great credence, at the time. So he’s there, he’s born in Jamaica. sent to England for his education. So firstly, he goes to Westminster School then he goes to Bailey Old College, Oxford. And I think that sending your son to Westminster and then to Oxford is partly about getting an education, but it’s also partly or in large measure about networking. and the English universities, certainly in the 18th century had a rather poor reputation as being rather, And after he’s been to Oxford, he’s, he then goes off to Leiden and studies, under the physician bore Harbor. we might say that in, in, the Dutch Republic, he could, he got a proper education and he returns to Jamaica. He then makes a couple of trips to London, and then he makes a co goes back to Jamaica. But the final to Jamaica was in 1750. And this is one of the important things about Beckford. You said that he was born in 1709 after 1750. He does not go back to Jamaica. He spends the rest of his life in England. And this is one of the important things about him. He’s part of theocracy, the absentee planters who make their way in England. And these planters are well known for their wealth and they are resented for their wealth, and they are criticized for their wealth and for trying to forward the interests of the sugar colonies. do not attract a particular degree of criticism for the slave owning however.

Hazel: So I’ve had a little play around with the National Archives currency calculator. 

Ian: Good 

Hazel: Now this has, this often you say, when you’re dealing with this deal with a pinch of salt, but a skip worth of salt would be more realistic. So if we are looking about what 1770 are, we saying,

Ian: Sorry that, that figure is for the 1760s. So actually you’re not far out. 

Hazel: Okay, so if we do it for the spending power, this is not about wealth. This is spending power for, 1760s compared to, I say now-ish. It’s like 2017 was the last update. Then it was worth £1,434,472.20, which meant in 1760 you could buy with 14,000 pounds. horses, 2,997 cows. If you’re wanting to get a few woolly jumpers, then you could get 29,787, stones of wool.

You could also get 8,588 quarts of wheat, and you could pay a skilled tradesman for 140,000 days, which is just amazing 

if you think of that kind of wealth there. 

Ian: Yes. 

Hazel: To have that kind of spending power.

Ian: Yes. Yeah. The problem with all that is that the one and a half million just doesn’t sound significant in today’s terms, and I think we’d need to compare ’em sort of billionaires today. 

Hazel: Yes. I’d agree with that. When you’re playing around, the Bank of England has also got a conversion calculator, measuring wealth. And they come up with a few other little values as well. So from the value from 1760 to now 14,000, then when you’re talking the monetary value, we’ve got about 28 million and that’s the reflection of goods and services.

However, if we think of economic power and influence, then this is where you are coming in, talking in the realms of billionaires, roughly about two to 3 billion pounds, which is significant. 

​

Hazel: Was it typical for men like Bedford to move between colonies and London? So freely? What does that say about social mobility and also the empire at large?

Ian: I think this plantocracy is a fairly new phenomenon and it causes a certain amount, as already mentioned, resentment. So it’s very much a phenomenon which contemporaries are aware of. And in terms of social mobility, he does use his wealth to integrate into the British landed classes. And I think he does this fairly successfully. But I think we also have to bear in mind that the aristocrats, as they would define themselves, would slightly look down their noses at him, being new money. Not particularly worried about the origins of this new money, but the fact that it’s not. Old money and the fact that he’s, like other members of the plant, ocracy, so wealthy. So he comes to, and what he does is he, a couple of things. One is to buy property and, as already mentioned, he buys this property font hill, which it, the time of its purchase is a renovated Elizabethan Manchin. It burns down, as we’ve said, and then he rebuilds it in the latest Palladian style and he buys a couple of other landed estates as well. What’s interesting, particularly for us concerned with London history is following Beckford around London and his first London home is. Number 12, upper Brook Street. Upper Brook Street is very near Grovesvenor Square, which was perhaps the most fashionable square at this time. As with these other places that we’re gonna mention in terms of London, there isn’t much remaining from Beckford time, but it’s quite interesting to walk in his footsteps and to try and imagine the world which he inhabited. 12 Brook Street was largely remodeled after the Second World War as the house of the Canadian High Commissioner. never been inside it from the outside. It looks, to my mind, very ugly, post-Second World War Historicizing buildings. But read that inside some of the original. features remain. So it’d be interesting at some stage to, to go around and have a look at it. Though, having described it as ugly, I don’t suppose anybody’s gonna invite me particularly soon. But anyway, the key thing is that he’s, in the most fashionable part of London, this is where a lot of the plantation owners live, so he can go and chat with them, then, in 1751, he moved to 22 Soho Square.

So for those people who don’t know, London, Soho Square is to the east of where we’re talking about, and it’s just to the south of Oxford Street. And even today, it has a rather mixed feel about it. Do you agree, Hazel?

Do you agree with that? 

Hazel: Yeah, it’s got a story of its own, hasn’t it? It is from different eras, but, it would’ve been a good address to reach into Westminster and the City though, if you think about it. 

Ian: This move to the east is, somewhat significant ’cause, Soho Square was grand, it wasn’t nearly as grand at this stage as, Grosvenor Square was. And we can see a process whereby the, more easterly of the squares, which are developed first go downhill as the aristocratic people who had patronized them and really got them going. Then progress further out to the west, hence the development of Grosvenor Square to the west. 

Hazel: And just to, say who lived in Grosvenor Square as well, compared to Soho Square in the 1760s. If you think of the biggest names that you could. So the Duke of Portland, who later became pm, Lord Harcourt, who is a diplomat and politician, and several members of the peerage, Irish, Scottish, and also English titles as well. They’re all in Grosvenor Square at this time. And it would’ve been uniform, there would’ve been five Bay brick houses. Absolutely, gorgeous, top-notch, architecture, none of which, exists, anymore. and these town townhouses would’ve had the basements, three or four stories above ground.

There weren’t very high, very grand staircases, drawing rooms on the Piano Noble, which is the first floor if you’re in America. That’s the second floor. and then the bedrooms above that and real restrained, Georgian Classicism. So that was what Grover Square was. It was synonymous with wealth and refinement and elite society. However, with Soho Square, this is, at the same time associated with, medical men, publishers, tradespeople, and even, institutions.

William Chambers, the architect, was around at that time also. Dr. William Hunter, we’ve done an episode on him. He was at number 28. and also, I can never pronounce his name.

Isaac Umra, the physician for the Portuguese Embassy. He lived on the square at the same time, as well as opera singers, French Engravers, publishers, book binders. Useful people that do things they were in, in Soho Square rather than titled Genteel Folk. 

Ian: And perhaps it might be worth adding in parentheses now that Grosvenor Square is a huge disappointment just now. Whereas Soho Square is interesting. but the with, Brook Street, as was saying, although the originals there, you, it’s interesting to, to walk along upper Brook Street. 

Hazel: yeah.

Ian: it’s interesting to walk along and let your imagination run with it. 

Hazel: I had a little look at prices of Upper Brook Street and did you know that number 12 was sold in 2003? I 

Ian: No, 

Hazel: Do you want to know how much for?! £12,140,000.

Ian: I guess that gives some idea of the kind of wealth that somebody like Beckford had, where he moved to in Soho. Square number 22 is no longer there. There’s a rather strange modern building there. But what’s quite nice about Soho Square is that part of it is genuinely 18th century, if only a small part of it.

And number one, one Greek Street, which is the, of St. Barnabas is, still standing and although it’s number one Greek Street, it’s actually on the south side of Soho Square. So Greek Street runs to the south, directly to the south, leading out of, leading outta the square. This is a really grand house to stand outside. And I remember you saying, Hazel, that you’ve actually been inside. I never have. but it sounds like a really interesting building and the importance for us is that it was leased and remodeled, done up for Beckford’s younger brother. This is Richard Beckford He, I, my understanding is that the finest 18th century interiors in Soho are within that building. but it’s also very interesting for its later history. So it became the headquarters of the Metropolitan Board of Works in the 19th century. And this is Basil Jet’s headquarters, the man who rebuilds sewers, and then it gets its modern name because from 1862 until a couple of years ago, it was the home of the St.

Barnabas charity, which was a club and a charity, and which worked with London’s homeless. So diverse and interesting history, but as I say, Hazel, can you say anything about visiting it and seeing, did you see 18th century interiors when you were in there? 

Hazel: I don’t remember seeing very much of the interiors. The membership club was for those who worked in media and the arts. So there was a lot of modern art, sculptures and pieces of art on the wall, which are my particular favourite of mine. so I was a bit dazzled by all of that.

I do remember some plaster work, on the ceiling and of course that you got the very nice, Georgian windows on the ground floor. But no, I don’t remember very much of that, but that might have been, we just didn’t have access to those rooms or I just, that wasn’t just, something that I remember at the time focusing on.

So if any opportunity arises, at the moment it’s closed. London’s changing all the time, as any modern city does. So keep an eye on it and it’s worth reminding the listeners that the transcript is also on our website, but also we add in photos, so of, these buildings that we’re talking about, there’ll be photos on the show notes for you to have a little look at as well londonguidedwalks.co.uk

Ian: So standing outside this house, looking at it from Soho Square, it really is grand and beautiful. So I’ve never been inside, but it really is interesting from the outside, and I think it gives some idea of the kind of luxury that these people were, used to living in. He moves, the east, which is going in the, against the flow of the fashionable and extremely wealthy going the other way. you’re saying it’s still, respectable and the reason for going there is that it’s a lot easier for. Him to get into the city from. The city is his other kind of place where he operates in the city is where a lot of the merchants are.

So it’s important for him to have contact with them. And he has opened an office, in Nicholas Lane. Nicholas Lane is now bland, modern office blocks. but also he was along with the other, a lot of other, West India men. somebody who frequented the Jamaica Coffee House. And the Jamaica Coffee House was just off cornhill and this is a very important historical site. It’s now. Occupied by the Jamaica Wine Bar, which I should emphasize has nothing to do, with the earlier Coffee house bar sharing the same name. So the wine bar was built in the 1860s, but it’s built on the site of the coffee house. And the coffee house is important because it was the place where the West India merchant men met.

So these are very wealthy merchants, and it’s important in the context of London’s burgeoning financial markets because these are one small section of the mercantile elite who play a very important part in the development of London’s markets. And it’s also historically important because in 1652, this was the first place where coffee was sold as a beverage in London, definitely.

Probably the first place, in England as well. And it’s in these little narrow alleyways, quite, evocative, I think. And it’s reasonably easy to imagine yourself back in the 18th century when you are walking around them. so this is the kind of London milieu in which he operated.

For me, it’s interesting to walk around these places and have a look where Beckford would’ve walked.

Hazel: Do you know where we get Nicholas Lane’s name from?

Ian: No, go on, 

Hazel: it was originally Saint Nicholas Lane, which might give a little clue. And this is a street running north and south from Lombard Street to Candlewick Street, and it comes from the medieval Saint Nicholas ACON Church. The earliest recording is 108AD4. However, that church got destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 60 66, and it was never rebuilt.

So even when Beckford is walking around, that church has been gone for a hundred years and we still have the name now.

Ian: We’ve spoken a bit about his property in London. And the estates more than the London House are about assimilating with the English landed classes. And he invites well to do people to visit him in Ele and obviously being very rich. They’re quite keen to go because you’re gonna get really splendid entertainment, if you go there. The other thing that he is using his money for is to buy his way into politics. And he first of all, gains a seat as a member of Parliament in Shaftesbury in 1747, and his younger brother, Richard, who we’ve already mentioned, becomes MP for Bristol. And I’m never quite sure how you pronounce this brother’s name due lines. Possibly becomes MP for Salisbury. But what’s significant is that Beckford then shifts his political attention towards the city of London. In the 1754 election, he’s elected as an MP for the city. And he repeats this feat in the remaining elections in his life, which say 1761 and 1768. the city is important because it’s full of merchants like him, but it’s also important because it is one of the most open constituencies in England. So there are estimated to be around 6,000 voters in the city of London. Another thing about the city of London is that it returns four members of parliament, and the electorate of 6,000 is only really surpassed by Westminster.

where there are 9,000 voters. Westminster, it’s no coincidence. That’s the place where Wilkes, the radical, wins the elections and then is denied his seat, but nevertheless, standing for the city, it’s about winning over a lot of men who would be seen as relatively independent. This is a seat in which the traditional ties of aristocratic patronage are a lot weaker, and this is important. When we’re talking about aristocratic patronage in the 18th century, it might be worth, mentioning that the only other seat that returns for members of Parliament is none other than Weymouth come, Malcolm, Regis. and that reflects in it rather dramatically the fact that the representation of the House of Commons is very much. Based on how it was established in the Middle Ages and the places that were wealthy, and important in the Middle Ages, still have outsize influence in the 18th century. this business about winning the polls in the cities is important for Beckford.

And, there are four MPs. He comes fourth in 1754, but that’s fine. And then he comes third in the next two elections. And he’s also pursues a political career within the city itself. So he becomes an alderman in 1752 for Billingsgate. is divided into the city of London is divided into wards and each of the ward returns a varying number of councilors, common councilmen, depending on the population there. But each of the wards returns one alderman. So the alderman is kinda like the most senior post within a ward. In 1755, he becomes a sheriff of London. This is largely a ceremonial role by this stage. But it is a crucial stepping stone because once you have become sheriff, you are then eligible to become Lord mayor. Beckford serves as Lord Mayor twice, once in 1762 and once in 1769. And it’s this latter time of serving as Lord Mayor that’s going to lead to his kind of apotheosis as a champion of English liberties. 

Hazel: You mentioned that Beckford was Lord Mayor of London twice. First term, 1762-63. Second term, 1769-1770, but it is in 1770 that he makes a famous speech.

Ian: Yeah, part of the reason the speech is famous is that he shouldn’t have made it in the first place. So what happens is he is present as Lord Mayor. He presents two addresses to George III, and the first of these is in March. And in this address he calls for dissolution of parliament and a removal of ministers. This is fairly sailing, although it sounds to us very innocuous. This is fairly, to the wind. It’s fairly controversial because he’s using the language of 17th century parliamentary grievances against the king, against George III. he is basically comparing George II to the stewards. And, the king believes that the address is extremely disrespectful. And then the. news is ratcheted up a little bit because in April there is news of the Boston Massacre, and we’ll come onto a bit in the, a little bit later, I’m sure, the fact that one of the things that Beckford is opposition to the king about is the policy on the American colonies.

He’s a member of the American colonies and doesn’t want, kind of strict imperial policy imposed on them. In May, 1770, he makes another address to the king. And this address is, as a formal remonstrance of the livery as Lord Mayor. So again, very 17th century language. Again, he calls for the dissolution of parliament and the removal of evil ministers. And that really should have been it. The king gives a very cool reception, and that should have been at the end of it, but then Beckford to the amazement of everybody present. Answers. The King, his words became venerated by generations of radicals. And what he does is he assures the king of the loyalty of the city and declares that any minister who sought to drive a wedge between the crown and the city was an enemy of the people. And then he refers to our happy constitution as it was established at the glorious revolution. So this is, talking about revolution principles of 1688.

And by implication that George is, in some ways tyrannical because he’s not observing those principles.

Hazel: the 1760s were a turbulent decade in British politics anyway, so Beckford knew what he was doing.

Ian: Yes. he’s being deliberately provocative. And George III there’ve been some very sympathetic. Biographies recently of George III, but he strikes me as being very well-intentioned, but a bit outta touch and possibly out of his depth a bit. George is so angered by what Beckford has just said, that he can’t even find the words to utter reply. And the opposition press immediately circulates fulsome accounts of Bedford’s Exchange. And he’s encouraged to committee his words to paper. So he’s speaking extemporary before the king. But, in two days, a text of what was this spontaneous speech, appears in the press and the corporation that is the Council of the City of London, that they love all this because they’re against tyranny. They rely heavily on the American colonies for trade. and they, meet to vote thanks to the mayor, and then the following month, Beckford. Dies. And, he’s immediately acclaimed by radical papers as a martyr to their cause. So medals are struck, him, and already there’s fairly brisk market in spoons and tankard, him. Common Council, which is the, Council of the City of London, they vote for a statue of Beckford to be placed in Guildhall. And this is Julie. Executed by John Francis Moore, who has already done a statue of Beckford. And the one he makes for Guildhall shows Beckford. And he’s standing and he’s surrounded by two figures. One of these female figures represents the city of London. She’s in mourning. got her mace, her sort of state, and her cap of maintenance on her head. These are all symbols of the city of London. on the other side is a figure representing trade and navigation, is in this, drooping posture with a cornucopia representing the, benefits of trade and with a compass and an anchor. And, in the, on the, in the middle of the pedestal, there is engraved the, speech that Beckford had made. So here we have this ary monument to this champion of English liberty standing in Guildhall. And of course he was the largest slave owner of the time. And what I think is very interesting is, using this statue as a kind of example of the way contemporaries regarded slavery. And we earlier on, did a, a podcast on slave London and the slave trade. And one of the themes of that was how there’s a sort of big move in the 18th century, late 18th century when the anti-slavery movement gets going.

But before then, people aren’t really exercised by slavery. They’re not really bothered by it. And it’s like a quiet assumption. And the slave owners like Beckford don’t need to, don’t really feel the need to justify why they’re earning slaves. They don’t write about it, just property to them.

And it’s only when. anti-slavery movement really gets going, that they come outta the woodwork and then start talking about property rights and why it’s quite right that they should own slaves. And this sort of absence of commentary, I think fits in with Bedford’s life. So he dies in 1770.

This is when the anti-slavery movement is just about to get going, really. and it is two years after his death that in 1772 you have the famous Somerset case, which is, a case which is taken as, saying that slavery is. Antithetical to English common law. We are not quite sure what the ruling actually said, but the important thing is that people took it as meaning that, and that has two big important implications.

The first is a practical one: that you can’t really have slaves in England. And the really important practical part of that is that if you are an owner of slaves in England, or black servants as you might like to call them, you cannot legally threaten them with sending them back to the sugar colonies, which was, a major sort of force coercion, a major power that you had over them.

and people still did this on the quiet but after the Somerset case, you could not do it openly. It says that in English law. Slavery completely foreign to the rights of people under English common law. Why can you not then extend those rights to parts of the British Empire?

So it becomes a kind of great rallying cry for the, anti-slavery cause. But this happens after his death and he’s just before then. And, there aren’t many references, as I say from Beckford about slavery. So occasionally he makes comments about people with dark skin being, able to bear the heat and therefore serve as, soldiers in the Caribbean sort of fairly typical, racist view of people, of a different skin colour. We mentioned Font Hill. He has black servants there and a couple of the servants are called Wilkes and Liberty. So this sounds very much like the kind of joking names you might give to pet animals, which I think expresses a lot of his attitude. Another really interesting thing happens shortly before he dies, and that is that Grandville Sharp, who is the great campaigner who is behind a lot of the cases, including the Somerset case and Grandville Sharp produced this great book, arguing that slavery was not compatible with English common law, and. Obviously he wins to some extent this argument with the Somerset case. But prior to that, this has been a very contested point. And he’s not a lawyer, but he trains himself and he writes this book. And what he does is throughout, he champions the causes of runaway slaves, and he sees an advert put up for Beck, put up by Beckford for one of his servants or slaves who’s run away. And Granville Sharp writes to him, saying, asking him to reconsider his attitude to slaves, and also sends him a copy of his book. And all we get from Beckford is a Bruce reply and the return of the manuscript. So I think that sort of sums up Beck’s attitude towards slavery. then.

Hazel: If we think, if we’re thinking about Sharp and what he was doing, really not just the legal, but also the moral arguments framing, slavery as incompatible not only to British law, but also to Christian ethics. He argues, there’s a particular line. He says, the enslaved are fellow subjects under the king and the law must protect them.

Ian: Yes, I think there are a lot of things coming together at the end of the 18th century, which you just mentioned, which is the most important, which is evangelical Christianity, and it’s the spread of evangelical Protestantism. And these people are absolutely up in arms and, in particular, they’re worried about the spiritual conditions of people who are enslaved. But also you’ve got the enlightenment, in the background, the idea that the relationships between people should be based on reason. Difficult to reconcile with this terrible system of slavery. You’ve got the increasing importance of polite society and it, spread of tea drinking, which is ironic in a way because they’re with their tea, they’re consuming sugar. But that, again, is quite awkward because if you’ve got this kind of gentille society and yet your sugar is made by these people living in these, absolutely appalling conditions. And one of the aspects of anti-slavery is that they champion the cause of sugar that is not produced by slaves. And then finally, also at the end of the 18th century, and this is like the really radical and minority wing of it, you also have the growing idea of, that men in, wo men and to some extent, implicitly have rights just by being humans and that they should not be treated in. Degrading way.

So all of these things come together, but Beckford is on the hinge of that development. And, he is able to live his life and to our eyes, it’s an immense irony, that he is seen as a champion of English liberty. It wasn’t totally an irony free zone for him because, at the time when he becomes Lord Mayor in 1769, when you become Lord Mayor, you throw a big dinner, it costs a huge amount of money.

If you are Beckford, it costs a really big amount of money. somebody wrote an anonymous, little verse that circulated and circulated in large numbers. And the verse went, for Beckford, he was chosen mayor. white of high renowned to see a slave. He could not bear unless it were his own. So some people at least were alive to the, contradictions in appearing as this kind of great champion who has this erected to him, and yet was a big slave owner. And of course, that irony goes down to the present time because the City of London has been left with this rather awkward inheritance in Guildhall of this statue of this big slaveholder, not only the statue, but heralding him as a champion of English liberty. And a couple of years ago they had a debate about what to do with it.

And one of the councilors wanted it removed. In the end, they decided to keep it in situ and to put a plaque up, explaining that he was a slave owner. One is that unfortunately, since COVID Guildhall has no longer been open to the public, which is a big shame ’cause it’s, it is a fascinating building. the other thing is, people must make up their own minds on this, it was his statute that originally got me interested in Beckford. ’cause I was wondering around Guildhall and I actually saw this statue and it, I think it’s described by people in the know as being fine piece of 18th century carving.

But I don’t think anybody would say it’s a kind of work of art. it’s just one of these sort of funerary monuments to another 18th century grande. But you read it and I thought, hang on. Didn’t, wasn’t this guy, the big slave owner? And of course it just makes the statue immensely interesting once you realize that here is this man who’s being celebrated as a champion of English liberty.

And yet he was the biggest slave owner of, the day.

Hazel: Do you think there’s anything in it about him dying in 1770? Is that he died before the big change where he could have said something that was not. Of the time, not going with the flow of the abolition of slavery. And then he would’ve inevitably been canceled. Do you think he died early enough to stop him putting his foot in it? 

Ian: I think that had he died, 10 years later, the erection of a statue to him might well have been a lot more controversial. We area bout people in the City who are fairly hard in commercials, but also the anti-slavery movement certainly had its strong supporters in the city of London. a lot of the activity occurs in London, so yes, I think that’s absolutely right, that it was, it’s astonishing that his reputation was what it was, but I think what you’re saying is absolutely right, had he died a bit later on, it probably wouldn’t have happened.

Hazel: anybody wanting to learn more about the transatlantic slave trade and London, episode 126 is when Ian and I discussed that. So have a little listen to that, to try and build a bigger picture of what’s going on here. So Ian, you were talking about Bedford’s immense wealth, and how he had not so much of an interest into the welfare or even the human element of enslaved people.

Is there anywhere else other than Guildhall, can we see anything of Beckford and his legacy.

Ian: I mentioned earlier that the man who does the statue in Guildhall does another statue of him that’s in one of the London Guildhalls. And, think that this is the Iron Mongers. Beckford was a member of the Iron Mongers Guild. And I think that, I’ve not been there myself, but I think that they put up an explanation again saying who he was.

So that’s part of his inheritance. Otherwise, I don’t think there is a great deal. Fonthill was famously remodeled by his son, and perhaps people will know the Beckford name from the son more than the father. The son was very famous as. A romantic novelist, but also for rebuilding Fonthill in a neogothic style at immense expense, with enormous towers really, tall, which were destroyed by wind eventually. And he’s also very famous because he was, homosexual and he, I don’t think that anybody, championing gay rights ever mentioned him because of the, with slavery. But he was forced to live in exile and became marginalized. When at Fonthill, he entertains people like Horatio Nelson and Lady Hamilton who were similarly put aside because of the scandalous nature of their relationship. But nothing survives unfortunately of the font hills, the Palladian or the neogothic. So it’s a question really, as we were saying earlier, of walking round these places in London and trying to use your historical imagination to recreate what it was like. One of the things that follows on from the enormous controversy over statues to slave owners and, the controversy concerning monuments is that people are very reluctant to admit to, slaving history, which in a way is a shame, simply because the historical roots are interesting.

I think that it’s, incumbent upon modern society in Britain to recognize the importance of the slave trade in, modern Britain. And we should be remembering the importance of the slave trade and the places associated with somebody like Beckford.

Hazel: Is it worth circling back to what you were mentioning about, relationships with key members of parliament, including Wilkes? That’s, I think, worth connecting it? So in episode 91, we do, an episode about the radical MP, John Wilkes. But, they had an interesting relationship, didn’t they?

Ian: Yeah. This is one of the interesting things about Beckford and reflects the fact that we’ve been talking about the very end of his career when he undergoes his apotheosis as this champion of English liberty, but also the fact that he stands as an MP for the city is that he is in favour of radical politics, would be too strong a word for it.

But he’s, sort of, on the kind of spectrum towards radicalism. And one of the things that he does in Parliament is he stands up and he defends Wilkes. and we’ve already mentioned the fact that he has two slaves, on his estate, he calls Wilkes and Liberty. Wilkes and Liberty being the rallying call of many radicals at this period.

Hazel: Yeah, and it’s worth pointing out that Wilkes is imprisoned in 1768. So riots broke out in London, and they’re called the Wilkes of Liberty protests. Beckford publicly supports Wilkes’ right to free speech and also to trial.

Ian: and he is also a champion of various other causes which, Certainly anti monarchical to some extent. So he is very much against aristocratic corruption, which feeds into his championship of Wilkes. Wilkes wins the election to Westminster three or four times and is denied his seat. And this is what enrages a lot of people. Beckford is very much against aristocratic corruption. And there’s a debate in the late 1760s on the civil list, which is the money granted to George iii. he stands up and makes a speech saying, no, we, we need to have proper scrutiny of where this money is going. It’s far too much money. and he’s also a key thing in his politics is that he is an ally of the elder. pit the elder, in the. The 1750s is advocating an imperial policy. This is important. This is something that Beckford likes. But pet is somebody who is disliked by the king, and he comes to power and Beckford is a key ally of him. One other thing that Beckford champions have already mentioned is the cause of the American colonies. Now, this is largely, I suspect, because the people who own plantations in the Caribbean do not want to be treated like colonialists themselves. They do not want troops billeted on them. They want proper rights and they’re frightened to some extent by the attempts of the British government to impose or reimpose greater control on North America. So he’s very much, for these reasons, a champion of liberty, we might say in quote marks. But he also uses his politics to argue for policies which he is in favor of, partly because of his plantation interests. so of the things that Pitt considers doing is introducing a sugar tax to help pay for the war against the French. And then he waters this down and it was made into a sort of general. and behind this can be seen the influence, of Beckford. the key thing about Pitt is advocating a forward imperial policy, of aggression.

And this is something that Beckford supports and, I think is plantation owners. They’re all worried about the French being able to sail into the, West Indies and simply take their, islands from them. But their, attitude is a bit ambivalent because they don’t really want the British taking over the French sugar colonies because that would mean, more sugar coming onto the market.

So it’s a little bit double-edged. Beckford achieves great power in the second Pitt administration, which is in 1768. Pitt returns to power and he perhaps rather, hypocritically accepts a place in the House of Lords. and accepting a place in the house of Lords means that he can’t manage the House of Commons himself. And also Pitt is ill. So he’s not really politically active and he relies on left tenants to carry out the business in the commons for him. And one of these people is Beckford. But during the really important time of pit in power, which is in the late 1750s and early 1760s, Beckford, although he doesn’t have that degree of influence, he’s always writing letters to Pitt. And this is the key period in which, Pitt champions are more aggressive war against the French. So the seven years war breaks out in 1756. It begins badly. Pitt comes to power. He loses power. He then comes to power again. The war continues on. In, a bad way for the British. But then in 1759 under Pitt’s direction, the British win this great series of victories.

So they drive the French outta Canada, they drive the French out of India, they destroy the French fleet. And this is the Anis Rabis, and it’s all done under pit. And Beckford is there, pit in this. then the following period, pit loses power. And, two things happen. One is that the king’s favorite Butte comes to power and a lot of people, including Beckford, hate this.

And he hates it, partly because it’s aristocratic influence. it’s the king in his eyes, acting tyrannical in, appointing his, favorite, the man who’d been his tutor, as his prime minister. But also in 1763, the British sign at peace with the French pitt, who is now outta power, hates this treaty as being too soft on the French and Beckford joins in with him. so we can see, Pitt using his influence as a member of power to forward the influence of the, plantation owners in the West Indies, plus this kind of agenda of liberty, and it’s the pursuit of West Indian interests as mentioned earlier that incurs the contempt to some extent of critics of the time.

That’s the thing that really bothers them, not the fact that he is this, massive owner of slaves in Jamaica.

Hazel: Now if we’re talking about friendships and linking, John Wilkes, but also with Beckford, but also with, Horace Whirlpool as well. Horace Whirlpool described Beckford as a vast, rich tor. and for Wal Polter to say that Bedford’s Rich, he really is. what I love, is, in April, 1770, so just weeks before Bedford’s death of death, there he is, 22 Soho Square, and he famously hangs a huge banner across his house in Soho Square, emblazoned with the word liberty.

Yeah. A clear gesture of support for Wilkes, who has just been recently, released. And it is Horace Whirlpool who, sardonically notes that the banner stayed intact because the weather was bad and that no one went out. But the symbolism was, unmistakable. I do like that. all of these Le Pens, letters that Beckford ISS doing and all the money he has, and really the only power that he feels that he has is to put this banner in front of his own house.

Ian: I, interesting that Waro describes him as Tory. 

Hazel: When we’re talking about Beckford, we’re coming to the conclusion really that his story complicates our understanding of London history is not simple, it’s not black and white. There’s multiple layers through multiple lenses. and it’s hard to read their acceptance or knowledge of things.

And even when we read a quote, we dunno exactly if that is their verbatim and also in the context in which they were spoken or written and who they were directed to. but I do think it highlights a really interesting story of how we can’t just take down a statute and pretend that something didn’t happen.

Ian: Yeah. And Slave owners, including Beckford at this time, is their relative silence on slavery. And it’s, it is a bit of an odd thing to talk about, really, a sort of absence of, discourse. But this is a big contrast to, for example, with the, classical period, because the Romans, wrote quite extensively on, on slavery. And, they would write treatises on, for example, how, you should treat your slaves, IE how you should treat your slaves. and the British in the, part of the 18th century are conspicuous for not doing this. And I guess that there, there are a couple of important things in play there. One of them is that Roman slavery lacks this later racial element, which is, so crucial. And what you do see in Rome is occasional sympathy for slaves. under the emperor Nero, Tacitus tells us about a, senator who is murdered by one of his household slaves. And under Roman law, if that happens, all of the household slaves are, to be executed. And there is a huge, demonstration in favor of the slaves. So the, there’s rioting amongst the plebs, but also there’s a debate in the Senate about the rights and wrongs of this. And a lot of the centers stand up and say, look, you can’t do this. gonna be murdering a lot of innocent people. And you could say, this Roman law is incredibly harsh. the Senate in the end decides that, no, we need to keep this law because , we need to discourage, slaves for murdering their, owners. But nevertheless, It’s hard to imagine that kind of massive degree of popular sympathy for, slaves who are gonna be, in 18th century Britain.

And in addition to the racial element, I think the fact that it’s, a long way away that it’s tucked into the Caribbean also is important. but there’s also a sort of positive aspect to Roman culture here, that there is this kind of civilised idea of how, a man in particular should behave in a correct way. And then finally we begin to see that coming into the, late 18th century discourse in, Britain. so as always, difficult to argue from an absence of evidence, but the absence of slave owners justifying, what they’re doing in a way in itself speaks volumes.

Hazel: that brings us to the end of today’s journey into the extraordinary life and legacy of William Beckford, A man of immense wealth, bold convictions, and larger than life ambition from the halls of Parliament to Soho Square Beckford left a mark on 18th century London that still echoes in politics, architecture, and the ongoing conversation about liberty.

Complex, controversial, and undeniably influential. His story reminds us of how power principles and public spectacle can collide in the making and rewriting of history. If you enjoyed this episode, don’t forget to subscribe. Leave us a review and share it with someone who loves untold stories from the past.

As I mentioned for sources, images, more context, links to the other episodes that I’ve mentioned. Then check the show notes on londonguidedwalks.co.uk/podcast. Until next time!