Heathcote, whose father, probably one of the largest landowners in south Lincolnshire, sat as Whig Member for Rutland, entered Westminster school in January 1808: he was placed in the Upper 4th and ‘so I am not a fag’, he told his mother.
At the 1820 general election he came forward for the venal borough of Boston, where the family’s influence had been revived, replacing his friend Peter Robert Drummond Burrell on the Blue, or Whig interest. He was too ill to canvass, but headed the poll with a record majority after a two-day contest. His universal popularity, so the Rev. Thomas Kaye Bonney informed Sir Gilbert, more than guaranteed his future return, provided he did not mind the ‘common expense attending it’. His costs, including bribes to freemen, amounted to almost £4,000 and, on the advice of the banker William Garfit, his agent and the nominal head of the Orange party, were settled unobtrusively. He was eager to make himself acquainted with Boston’s affairs and told Garfit of his willingness to be of ‘any service to the freemen’, though he was all too soon aware of their rapaciousness. In line with Sir Gilbert’s wishes, he made a concerted effort at economy, but the uncertainty surrounding the petition against the return of his absentee colleague Henry Ellis undermined his determination not to spend more money before the next election. At the declaration he declared it his first duty to be the ‘organ of his constituents’ and pledged himself to a ‘punctual attendance’ at Westminster.
A regular attender, who took a keen interest in Boston’s commercial and local affairs, he voted with the Whig opposition to the Liverpool ministry on most major issues, including economy, retrenchment and reduced taxation.
Heathcote moved for further information on bonded grain, 13 Feb. 1822. On 28 Feb. he presented and endorsed a Louth petition for agricultural relief, observing that neither their industry nor the remission of rent could save Lincolnshire’s farmers from ‘utter ruin’ and ascribing distress to excessive taxation. He brought up a Lincolnshire petition for reduced taxation and parliamentary reform, 25 Mar., but was reported to have offended many of his constituents by not attending a county reform meeting at Lincoln in April.
Heathcote pressed government to reduce the duty on excise licences, 4 Mar. 1824, and next day moved for further information on bonded corn. He presented a Boston petition for the abolition of slavery, 15 Mar. According to Lady Williams Wynn, 31 Mar., he was all set to marry Lady Emma Brudenell, a daughter of the 6th earl of Cardigan, but broke off the engagement and was immediately challenged to a duel by her quarrelsome and loose-living brother Lord Brudenell*. When they met, Brudenell, who ironically had formed an association with Elizabeth Johnstone, a married relative of Heathcote’s mother
fired first and the other of course would not return it, so there it ended, the brother only requiring him to sign a certificate that he had no reproach to make to Lady Emma, which he said he was most ready to do, never having thought of making the slightest imputation on her. The story told is, that it is all connected with Lady Emma’s ‘first fault’, or rather to go still higher, with the strong fancy which her mother took originally for Mrs. Johnson, between whom and her daughters, she formed the strictest intimacy. To the continuance of this intimacy under the existing circumstances, Heathcote vehemently objected as far as regard his fiancée, and at last got her to promise to drop it, in spite of which, however, he found that she continued a private correspondence, and taking fright at such a palpable breach of faith, he declared off.
Lady Williams Wynn added that Lady Derby, in conversation with Thomas Creevey*, had commented that Heathcote, after receiving Cardigan’s shot, ought to have said ‘Now, my Lord, I must beg of you to receive my shot for your conduct to my cousin!’. ‘Damned fair, I think’, was Creevey’s reply.
Heathcote spent some time at Belvoir Castle, in company with Lord and Lady Exeter, as a guest of the 5th duke of Rutland in early February 1826. Speaking in committee on the navigation laws, 14 Feb., he alleged that the commercial treaties with La Planta and Colombia had caused redundancies in the British shipping industry. On 21 Feb. he secured information on the number and tonnage of ships entering British ports. He deprecated the frequent discussions of the Scottish currency, since it undermined what little confidence remained, 6 Mar. He deplored the divisive language of recent petitions against the corn laws, 10 Mar., observing that those from the ‘lower orders’, who were suffering from the ‘pressure of distress’, were entitled to respect, but when petitioners, such as the magistrates of Arbroath, referred to the laws as the ‘bread tax, the landlords’ tax and the job of jobs’, they were sowing the seeds of discord. He presented petitions from Boston for the abolition of slavery, 21 Mar., and from Sunderland shippers against the Reciprocity of Duties Act, 17 Apr., when he argued that the relaxation of the navigation laws, which allowed British and foreign ship owners to trade on equal terms, was detrimental to British shipping. He obtained information on the tonnage of British and foreign ships entering home ports, 26 Apr. He presented a Boston corn merchants’ petition against the bonded corn bill, 5 May, when he warned that the decision to admit foreign corn would upset the market. Elaborating, 8 May, he did not oppose the release of bonded corn to relieve distress, but questioned ministers’ consistency after their defeat of a proposal to reduce agricultural protection on 18 Apr. He opposed the measure as an expedient adopted in response to ‘outrage and clamour’ and was a teller for the minority of 58 in the subsequent division, 8 May. He presented a Boston petition against revision of the corn laws, 9 May 1826.
At the 1826 general election he offered again for Boston and topped the poll after a two-day contest. Before the campaign he drew up a budget to curb expenses, but at the same time told Garfit ‘not to do less than the Pinks’. On the hustings he boasted that during the last six years he had voted on all the ‘great political questions’. He had been returned unpledged in 1820, but trusted that henceforward ‘I shall be known by my zealous exertions to secure the rights and privileges of the freemen’. Alluding to the remarks of his ministerialist colleague Neill Malcolm, he accepted that government had done ‘much for the good of the people’, but he wished them to do more, and called on Malcolm to support the campaign for reduced taxation. He ended by urging those freemen with county votes to support Amcotts Ingilby.
will not lose sight of him till the knot is actually tied fast. It has been for sometime the height of their ambition to catch him, having to them, the particular merit of near neighbourhood in addition to all other general ones, so that I think he will hardly slip away.
Williams Wynn Corresp. 363.
Under the terms of the marriage settlement, 25 Sept. 1827, lands in Lincolnshire and Rutland, worth over £7,480 a year, were set aside to provide him with an annual rent charge of £4,000, as well as a jointure of between £2,000 and £3,000 for his wife, then still a minor. They were married at Drummond Castle, Perthshire, and the celebrations at Boston, according to the Gazette, were marked by scenes of ‘drunkenness and depravity’.
Heathcote presented petitions for repeal of the Test Acts, 22 Feb., but did not vote for it, 26 Feb. 1828. He secured an account of the preceding year’s maritime trade, 24 Mar. He endorsed a petition on the depressed state of the wool trade, citing the ‘extreme anxiety’ that prevailed among farmers and landowners and stating that in some instances the price of wool had fallen by 30 per cent, 17 Apr., and presented petitions for an import duty on wool next day and 28 Apr. He presented petitions against the revised corn duties, 17, 22 Apr., when he declined to explain his objections to the existing scale because of the late hour, and for greater agricultural protection, 24, 25 Apr. Speaking at length in defence of the agricultural interest, 28 Apr., he argued that the agriculturists were the ‘best judges of their own interests’ and vilified those political economists and advocates of the manufacturing interest who professed to know better. That day he complained that the price of freight had not been sufficiently considered in determining British and foreign corn averages. He presented a Boston petition against Catholic claims, 30 Apr., but voted for relief, 12 May. He divided against provision for Canning’s family next day. On 23 May he opposed a call for information on Millbank penitentiary as the relevant statistics were already before the House. He presented but declined to endorse the prayer of the Lincolnshire wool growers’ petition, 3 June, on the ground that their call for protection was too extreme, but he stressed the need for inquiry and hoped that the Wellington ministry would pay more attention to the wool trade. He voted to restrict the circulation of small notes in Scotland and Ireland, 5 June, and presented a petition from Welsh lead miners against the import of foreign ore, 9 June. He presented additional petitions from wool growers, 17, 23 June, and took the opportunity of presenting another, 4 July, to argue the case for further protection. He deprecated the desultory discussion of the usury laws, 15 May, and on 19 June refuted the argument that they had had a ‘ruinous effect on trade’. He sneered at the political economists’ devotion to the open market which, ‘according to the strictest and best approved rules of the art’, would ruin the agricultural interest. On 24 June he protested that the question of financial reform had often been improperly introduced into debate and pledged himself against further opposition to currency reforms during the present session. As a spokesman for the shipping interest, however, he reiterated their grievances in the face of competition from cheaply freighted foreigners. He appreciated the impossibility of effecting a remedy at this late stage, but accepted the assurance of ministers that the maritime interest would be investigated during the recess. He presented petitions for the abolition of slavery, 30 June, and the cessation of £1 notes, 1 July. On 4 July he presented a petition from the coroner of Bury St. Edmunds for increased travel expenses and, later in the same sitting, denounced the practice of introducing important bills at ‘one or two o’clock in the morning’. He voted to abolish the governorship of Dartmouth garrison, 20 June, and to reduce the salary of the lieutenant-general of the ordnance, 4 July 1828.
In late February 1829 he was listed by Planta, the Wellington ministry’s patronage secretary, among Whigs ‘opposed to securities’ to accompany the concession of Catholic emancipation, for which he voted, 6 Mar. 1829. He rejected the claims of Colonel Sibthorp, the Tory Member for Lincoln, that the county was hostile to the measure, 9 Mar., when he brought up two favourable petitions, and 20 Mar., when he condemned the practice of smuggling covert and unrepresentative petitions into the House and expressed his belief that the majority of freeholders were content to leave the issue to government. On 25 Mar. he urged Byng to withdraw his proposal to indemnify counties against the expense of repairs to roads adjoining public bridges, since it would be lost during the present session. He secured information on the volume of exported and imported wool, 25 Mar. He was in the minority for the transfer of East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 5 May, justifying his vote not only on the account of Birmingham’s economic importance, but also from a wish to extend the ‘rights of the people’, 7 May. He spoke against the issue of a new writ that day, though he was aware that many of his Whig friends still wished to save the old constituency, saying that he preferred the respectable freeholders of Bassetlaw to the ‘corrupt and degraded’ voters of East Retford and that it was ridiculous to suppose that the former were under the thumb of the Ultra Tory duke of Newcastle, whose influence there was no more than that which ‘ought fairly to belong to property’. He endorsed a Cumberland petition for agricultural relief and, referring to the dramatic fall in the price of long wool, argued for inquiry, 11 May. Certain that ministers would not revise the corn laws, 14 May, he declared his opposition to Hume’s proposal for inquiry, largely because any discussion would pose a threat to public order, especially in the aftermath of the disturbances in Cheshire and Lancashire. Expanding on this theme, 19 May, he declared that the operation of the existing regulations had proved ‘adequate’ in the face of high prices and repudiated the claim that the laws were responsible for manufacturing distress. On 15 May he presented and endorsed a Lincolnshire petition in support of the Smithfield market bill and urged Members not to disregard the evidence of ‘practical men’. Reiterating his opposition to reform of the usury laws, 25 Mar., he called on the friends of the landed interest to back government in opposing the proposal. He supported a call to permit tobacco cultivation in England as a means of relieving rural unemployment, 1 June 1829.
Heathcote was absent for much of the 1830 session on account of his wife’s serious illness and was described as an ‘idle Member’ in a subsequent radical commentary.
At the 1830 general election Heathcote offered again for Boston, where the local reformers had persuaded the radical reformer John Wilks I* to stand. Addressing the freemen, 30 June, Heathcote repudiated criticisms of his lax attendance, saying he had regularly attended to his parliamentary duties for over ten years with the exception of the last four months, in consequence of the dangerous illness of his wife, and even then he had gone up to present petitions and ‘since the Easter recess I have attended more regularly and voted on at least 30 important questions’. Questioned over his absence from Graham’s proposal to reduce privy councillors’ emoluments, 14 May, he pleaded ill health, assuring the freemen that otherwise he would have voted for it. Perceiving his position to be untenable, he withdrew, 13 July, and made strenuous efforts to find a seat elsewhere.
On 20 Mar. 1831 Tennyson once more recommended him as a candidate for Lincoln in the event of the passage of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, saying he had no ulterior motive but merely wished to assist ‘such a man as yourself’ to find a seat. Heathcote was formally asked by the freemen to stand as a reformer, 26 Mar., but was warned by Garfit that any association with them would prejudice his chances at Boston. He was mentioned by the Boston Gazette, 5 Apr., as a likely candidate for the southern division of Lincolnshire in a reformed Parliament, and was encouraged by Heron to declare himself as such. In reply to Heron, 2 Apr., he explained:
My first wish is that there may be no dissolution, the second is that if there is, some man may be found to come forward to support reform. I have no money to spare nor any wish to be the other man, but I would put myself to inconvenience and stand by the cause if no one else will do so. It is on these terms only that I asked your help. I know my political opinions are not popular, but still I think the county at large would not like the return of one opposed to reform. Be assured I will make no offer of myself till the last moment, but will invite others to come.
Rumours of his candidature for the reformed county were well received, but Sir Gilbert was adverse to his ‘coming in’ to the short Parliament which would ensue in the event of the reform bill being rejected, though it was quite possible that an opportunity might present itself, but this was quite different from actively ‘seeking’ one. He accordingly refused to have any truck with negotiations over an unspecified borough, 3 Apr., but agreed to speak privately with Lord Saye and Sele whenever the chance occurred. He was opposed to any public declaration over the southern division, but suggested that an anonymous advertisement might be placed in the local papers, requesting the freeholders to reserve their votes. Heron persistently urged him to declare himself in order to ward off Chaplin, one of the county Members, as a refusal at this stage would ‘weaken a future claim’. At the same time the revival of the Orange interest at Boston and his growing popularity there, not least because he had always paid bribes, gave rise to speculation about his real intentions. He was certainly interested in the possibility of standing there and keen to improve his chances. To add to the mystery he told Johnson, who had declared for the southern division, 16 Apr., that he had long considered doing so himself, and that the almost unanimous offers of support ‘confirm me in this intention’. The defeat of the bill, however, made this aspiration academic. Yarborough’s eldest son requested his support at the nomination for the county, in recognition of his considerable influence in south Lincolnshire. Shortly after the dissolution, 22 Apr., he was invited to canvass Grantham, as a successor to Sir Montague Cholmeley, but was almost immediately advised not to appear once Colonel Hughes, unseated on petition in 1820, had declared himself. On 25 Apr. he offered as a reformer for Boston, where it was reported that the freemen had determined to secure his return. At the nomination he affirmed his loyalty to the king and respect for the privileges of peers, but said his first duty was to the people, the ‘source of all legitimate power’, and argued that reform would give ‘stability to the throne, happiness to the people, and knit together all classes’. Pressed for his views on retrenchment, he promised to strive to reduce the ‘shameful profligacy’ which had crept into the revenue. After a violent two-day contest he was returned with Wilks. Shortly afterwards he defended Sir Gilbert’s reputation as a reformer and stood in for him at the Rutland election and subsequent celebratory dinner.
Heathcote, in company with other Lincolnshire Members, took some interest in the progress of the Fordingham drainage bill in June and July 1831.
Heathcote’s future at Boston was by now uncertain. Garfit told him candidly, 19 June 1832, that his prospects were not good, that he could count on the old freemen, but otherwise could not calculate with ‘anything like certainty’, and there had been ‘much more dissatisfaction’ with his failure to vote in the second half of the session, particularly as he was known to be in London. ‘Both the Pink [Tory] and Blue [Whig] party do not fail to talk of it and we do not know what to say in reply’, Garfit reported. As to his qualms over election expenses, ‘the large fortunes of both your families are so magnified here that the people consider the expense to you a mere trifle and I fear there is no means of making them think otherwise’. He was already under threat. Benjamin Handley†, deputy recorder until 1826 and a ‘most violent radical’, according to a prominent Newark election agent, had given notice of his ambition to replace him in late May 1831, when it was supposed that he would opt for the county. Out of step with the aspirations of the Boston Political Union and criticized for not being ‘sufficiently industrious and decided’, he readily accepted a requisition from the freeholders of South Lincolnshire, 26 June 1832. He had previously tested the ground and began his canvass almost at once.