Fordwich came from a family with established interests in Hertfordshire and Kent, and was a grandson of the celebrated 3rd Earl Cowper, who spent most of his life in Italy and was a prince of the Holy Roman Empire. His father, often stigmatized as a dull man, married William Lamb’s* vivacious sister, who was freed by Cowper’s death to marry Lord Palmerston*, her lover for almost 30 years, in 1839.
Fordwich began to consider a career in Parliament on the rumour that Thomas Byron would retire from the representation of Hertford, where his uncle Edward Spencer Cowper had sat, 1802-17, and the family retained a residual interest. He speculatively attended a dinner there, 3 July 1829, made a surprise declaration that he would stand on a future occasion and received promises of support, possibly from some of the disaffected independent Whigs. He recorded in his journal that he was ‘very well received by the canaille of the town, and should probably have come in, but the report turned out not to be true, so I must wait’.
he was a friend to reform, as far as was consistent with the dignity of the crown and the safety of the state and the constitution. He was willing that complete reform should be attempted, but it must be done with due consideration.
Kentish Chron. 6, 13, 20, 27 July; Kentish Gazette, 6, 13, 20, 27 July 1830.
Having apparently offered to coalesce with Watson, to the disgust of their Tory opponent Henry Bingham Baring*, he advocated retrenchment and reform, criticized ministers’ foreign policy as weak and unworthy, and claimed that ‘if he opposed the present government, it would be from conscientious disapproval, and not from any factious opposition’.
Fordwich, whose connections were Huskissonite, was initially listed by ministers among the ‘bad doubtfuls’, but was subsequently labelled ‘opposition’. He was elected to Brooks’s, 6 Nov., and confirmed his Whig credentials by voting against government on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830. In the new ministry headed by Lord Grey, his uncle William (now Lord Melbourne) was home secretary, and his mother’s lover Palmerston was foreign secretary. He presented Canterbury reform petitions, 16 Nov. 1830, 4 Feb., 18 Mar., and raised the objections of a large number of local residents to the London Bridge approaches bill, 23 Feb. 1831.
He voted for the second reading of the re-introduced reform bill, 6 July, at least twice against adjourning proceedings on it, 12 July 1831, and usually for its details (at least once by pairing). However, he missed several divisions in committee because of illness and voted against government on an attempt to postpone consideration of the partial disfranchisement of Chippenham, 27 July.
Fordwich was returned for Canterbury as a Liberal after a token contest at the general election of 1832, but left the Commons at the dissolution two years later. Despite his reputation as a libertine, he was appointed parliamentary under-secretary at the foreign office by Palmerston three days before the fall of the first Melbourne ministry, but he probably continued to exercise his functions in an unofficial capacity for some weeks.
