GIFFORD, William (c.1649-1724), of Portsmouth, Hants and Dover Street, Westminster
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. c.1649, ?2nd s. of Sir Richard Gifford, of King’s Somborne, Hants. m. lic. 21 Dec. 1669, Elizabeth Charret, widow (d. 1721), s.p. Kntd. 6 Sept. 1705.1
2nd lt. RN 1676, 1st lt. 1679, capt. 1682; commr. of navy, Portsmouth 1702–6, extra commr. of navy 1706–14; commr. excise May–Sept. 1710, disbanding marine regts. 1711–15.2
Freeman, Portsmouth 1702; gov. Greenwich Hosp. 1708–May 1710, Sept. 1710–15; keeper, Greenwich park and palace 1711–Oct. 1714.3
Gifford’s early life remains something of a mystery until 1676 when he was promoted 2nd lieutenant of the Dragon at the request of Sir Roger Strickland†, rising to the rank of captain under Charles II. In November 1688, when the fleet was ordered out to sea, he was reprimanded for tardiness in getting his ship under way by the naval commissioner at Deptford, who wrote to Pepys complaining of Gifford’s ‘ungentle, and I may well say rough, if not rude, return to my zealous discharge of that duty and trust incumbent on me, for hastening to sea all the addition of force possible at such a time as this’. Gifford excused himself to Pepys by blaming the delay on the pilot and on the commissioner himself.4
After William III’s accession Gifford’s loyalty was suspect and he was not employed in the navy again until 1701. In the meantime he went into the merchant service in partnership with a group of London merchants. In March 1693 he was given permission to sail to Madeira, but Luttrell reported that, at an extraordinary council held at Kensington at the end of March, there
was a great hearing before his Majesty between the East India Company and Captain Gifford and Captain Pitt, two interlopers; the company pressed to have the interlopers hindered from going to sea, alleging it would be detrimental to the company by their informing the Indians of the state of their concern.
The result was that the order to sail was revoked. Eventually Gifford seems to have accepted the company’s offer to meet the interlopers’ expenses by taking the ships into their own service, but with unfortunate results, since on 15 Sept. 1695 Evelyn reported that
my good and worthy friend, Captain Gifford, who that he might get some competency to live decently, adventured all he had in a voyage of two years to the East Indies, was, with another great ship, taken by some French man-of-war, almost within sight of England, to the loss of near £700,000, to my great sorrow and pity of his wife, he being also a valiant and industrious man.
Gifford remained in the service of the East India Company, but only as a ship’s captain, with no private interest in trading ventures. In January 1696 he was granted a commission to seize French ships, but this was revoked in the following March on the grounds that he was ‘disaffected to the government’. Shortly afterwards, on 13 Apr., the Duke of Shrewsbury acquainted Sir John Fleet*, the governor of the company,
upon application that has been made to the King, on behalf of Captain Gifford, by several persons of quality, who offer to stand engaged for his loyalty and good affection to his Majesty, and fidelity to the company, the King is inclined to permit his proceeding upon the intended service to the East Indies.
The final authorization was granted on 16 Apr. By the end of the reign doubts about Gifford’s loyalty seem finally to have been allayed, since in February 1701 he was given command of a ship.5
Shortly after the accession of Queen Anne Gifford was appointed a navy commissioner at Portsmouth and in the following December was returned for that borough in a by-election. He was forecast as an opponent of the Tack, and although he was one of the naval officers lobbied by Admiral George Churchill* to attend the division, did not vote for the measure on 28 Nov. 1704. Returned again for Portsmouth in 1705 he was listed as a placeman and a ‘High Church courtier’, voted on 25 Oct. 1705 for the Court candidate for Speaker, and supported the Court again on the ‘place clause’ of t