‘Willy’ Ponsonby was delicate as a child and became a curiously feckless young man, with a touch of his sister Caroline’s tempestuous character. Aged six, on one of several childhood visits to the continent, his father reported that he was ‘very entertaining and has mighty odd expressions. His great rage is at the present to go into a nunnery to see the nuns. He says he understands after he is seven they will not let him in’.
a nice and amiable boy; he has a degree of prudence and discretion of which I never saw the parallel, but he is very shy and reserved: I have the greatest difficulty in persuading him to go into society ... In point of health I think he is really better than when he left England, he looks stouter and more manly, and if he would but go to bed earlier and not get up so late, I doubt not but that his cheeks would become blooming. Upon this subject I have repeatedly talked to him ... I fear, however, not with much effect.
Leveson Gower Corresp. i. 469; ii. 77, 79, 100, 115, 427-8.
On his return to England in late 1805, he was said to be ‘in every way as much improved as possible’ by his cousin Harriet Cavendish (who in fact became Leveson Gower’s wife a few years later). She so far tolerated Ponsonby’s boyish and ill advised attentions that her servant thought they would be married, the more so as she allowed Ponsonby ‘to dangle after her wherever she went’. Harriet confided to her sister Lady Morpeth in November 1807 that ‘I really do not know what to do about William, as he certainly dangles after me ... more than ever, yet so childishly that I cannot see any way of stopping it without an appearance of affectation and prudery’, especially as ‘he is so particularly touchy about anything he imagines to be an affront that I cannot change my manner to him in the least without his immediately taking it as an egregious offence’. Yet the following month she wrote of her relief, the difficulty ‘having ended happily in exactly the difference of our manière d’être that I wished to accomplish, without quarrelling, arguing or going one step out of the common way to effect it’. Though she thought he was ‘just as childish and "sans conséquence" in his manner as ever’, she noted a conversation with Lady Sarah Spencer, in which the latter began ‘the old story that he seemed quite a fool, and I my old defence that few people are so much the contrary’.
Ponsonby, who had been a lieutenant in his eldest brother Lord Duncannon’s Marylebone volunteers in 1803, succeeded his father to the command of the Royal Putney and Roehampton volunteers in November 1806.
I hope he is kind to her. She certainly suffers. Her situation is, I think, rather unpleasant, but I dislike saying all this in a letter, and indeed I never more will speak openly if you breathe this again, as I am convinced a spark might raise a flame.
Lady Bessborough, 240, 253-4.
Even though his wife was Catholic, the freeholders of Kilkenny would not countenance his replacing his brother there at the general election of 1820.
Among the properties left to his wife by her maternal grandfather Sir John Webb, in a trust over which Ponsonby took control, was the estate at Canford. He settled there in the mid-1820s, constructed a new mansion and contributed to several local improvements.
Ponsonby divided against the grant for the duke of Clarence, 16 Feb., 2 Mar. 1827. He reported to Caroline Lamb, 20 Feb., that ‘everything continues in an extraordinary state’, and doubted Canning’s ability to succeed the stricken Liverpool as prime minister.
we are all rather in dudgeon, at the gloomy view which ministers take of the Navarino business, and their desponding language generally, and complete submission to higher powers; if they do not pluck up a little spirit, it will go hard with them.
Add. 51724.
He voted for repeal of the Test Acts, 26 Feb. 1828. He divided against extending the franchise of East Retford to the freeholders of the hundred of Bassetlaw, 21 Mar. As ‘Hon. F. Ponsonby’, he voted to make 60s. not 64s. the pivot price of corn, 22 Apr., and to impose a duty on corn of 15s., reducing to 10s. by 1834, 29 Apr. Unless it was Frederick, he again voted in condemnation of chancery administration, 24 Apr. He sided with opposition against the misapplication of public money on Buckingham House, 23 June, and for reduction of the salary of the lieutenant-general of the ordnance, 4 July. He was in the minority against Fyler’s amendment in the committee on the Customs Acts, which was carried with government support, 14 July 1828. As he had on 6 Mar. 1827 and 12 May 1828, he voted for Catholic emancipation, 6, 30 Mar. 1829. He objected to Hobhouse’s St. James’s (Westminster) vestry bill in a letter to him, 26 Apr., and repeated his main criticism, that the matter would be better dealt with by a general bill, in the House, 21 May, when he successfully moved to have it thrown out.
As no opponent was willing to go to a poll, Ponsonby was returned unopposed for Poole at the general election of 1830, when he was given a hostile reception on the hustings. In September he agreed to pay for the building of a new library there, and he attended a dinner in honour of the members of the enlarged corporation.
that they expected to carry their measure, but that what he has seen in the House makes him doubt it. He told me that if the measure were not carried they were to go out. He owned to me that the measure alarmed him very much, but of course he will vote for it ... He asked me what was to happen if the measure were lost, for the mere broaching of it would render it impossible for any other set of men to govern the country.
Parker, Peel, ii. 176.
He duly divided in favour of the second reading of the bill, 22 Mar., and against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr., which precipitated a dissolution. He was thanked for his reform vote at a meeting in Poole, 7 Apr., when he spoke in support of the unfranchised commonalty and the bill. Having pledged to continue to vote for it, he was returned unopposed at the general election.
He voted for the second reading of the reintroduced reform bill, 6 July, at least twice against adjourning proceedings on it, 12 July 1831, and steadily for its details. Calcraft’s suicide, 11 Sept., created a vacancy for the county which Ponsonby instantly moved to fill, issuing a pro-reform address to the freeholders on the 13th, though, anticipating a contest, he soon evinced a desire to withdrew in favour of a stronger candidate.
not merely holding out an object of justifiable ambition to me, but as involving a question of public duty; considering that I am called upon to take a lead in that party, which has so recently asserted its power, and redeemed the character of the county [sic] from the charge of being backwards in the independent spirits of the times.
Dorset Co. Chron. 15, 22 Sept. 1831.
He returned to the House, and, having presumably been shut out with Burdett on the third reading, 19 Sept., he divided in favour of the passage of the bill, 21 Sept., and the second reading of the Scottish bill, 23 Sept. 1831; he resigned his seat on the 26th.
Supported by ministers, who were concerned that the victory of an anti-reformer would further weaken their prospects of carrying the bill in the Lords, he was expected to be returned unopposed, especially as Bankes declined to offer. But the late entry of Lord Ashley*, another of his wife’s cousins, turned the election into a ferocious contest, in which Ponsonby was branded an Irish Catholic interloper, castigated for voting against Lord Chandos’s clause to enfranchise £50 tenants-at-will and repeatedly outperformed by Ashley on the hustings. Although he rebutted the allegations against him, urged the cause of the people against an oppressive aristocracy and continually exhorted his supporters to even greater efforts, he trailed on most of the 15 days of the poll. He eventually lost by only 36 votes, though he complained that he had a majority of the votes tendered, and promised to petition on the ground of excessive delay in the processing of the disputed votes.
Although thanked for his pro-reform conduct at a meeting in Poole, 9 June 1832, he became unpopular there once it was known that the enlargement of the borough would effectively give him control over at least one seat, and he was charged with using his interest to secure the re-election of his replacement, Sir John Byng. He was himself invited to stand for the three Member county of Dorset, and despite his reluctance to risk another contest and his absence because of injuries sustained in a fall from his horse, he was elected unopposed as a Liberal, behind Ashley and William John Bankes*, at the general election in December 1832.
whilst herself, she was a generous, sober minded soul; witness her making ... [Ponsonby] give up his own fortune, saying they had enough, to poor Fred Ponsonby, who was deeply in debt; then sheltering for upwards of 20 years Lord Bessborough, really reversing the position of parent and child.
Lady Holland to Son, 217.
Ponsonby died in May 1855, ‘a cultivated man and a perfect gentleman’, who ‘had even more than the usual kindly nature of his family’. Although he had had to sell Canford in the 1840s, he was remembered in Poole for his ‘private kindnesses and public benefits’.
