SOMERSET, Lord Granville Charles Henry (1792-1848), of Troy, Mon. and 8 Clarges Street, Mdx.

Somerset, an anti-Catholic Tory, had represented Monmouthshire on his father the 6th duke of Beaufort’s interest since 1816. A riding accident in infancy left him hunchbacked in appearance, and although the deformity did not impair his prowess as a sportsman and hunter after hounds, he was easily caricatured, which, with his brusque manner, impeded his promotion to high office. Oxford DNB. Appointed a junior treasury lord in March 1819, he quickly demonstrated greater acumen and attention to departmental business than his elder brother Lord Worcester, Member for Monmouth Boroughs, unlike whom he assisted Beaufort in the management of their difficult constituency interests in Bristol and the counties and boroughs of Brecon, Glamorgan, Gloucester and Monmouth. H. Durant, The Somerset Sequence, 175; HP Commons, 1790-1820, v. 224. At the 1820 general election he monitored progress and negotiated support for their candidates in contests at Bristol, Cardiff and Monmouth Boroughs. E.M. Havill, ‘Parl. Rep. Mon. and Monmouth Bor. 1536-1832’ (Univ. of Wales M.A. thesis, 1949), 120-3; Merthyr Mawr mss CO/153/1-20; NLW, Vivian mss A124, 130; Bristol Mercury, 6, 13, 20 Mar. 1820. Despite rumblings of discontent from Whigs and protectionists, his own election for Monmouthshire with the head of the Tredegar family, Sir Charles Morgan, was not seriously challenged and was celebrated at Monmouth’s Beaufort Arms. Cambrian, 23, 30 Oct. 1819, 25 Mar.; Keene’s Bath Jnl. 14 Feb.; Bristol Mercury, 21, 28 Feb. 1820; NLW, Baker-Gabb mss 683; NLW, Tredegar mss 45/1478, 135/778.

Somerset of course divided steadily with his colleagues in Lord Liverpool’s government, and also against Catholic relief, 28 Feb. 1821, 30 Apr. 1822, 21 Apr., 10 May, and the attendant Irish franchise bill, 26 Apr. 1825. He divided against disqualifying civil officers of the ordnance from voting in parliamentary elections, 12 Apr. 1821, confirmed his hostility to reform in the divisions on 9 May 1821, 20 Feb., 2 June 1823, 26 Feb. 1824, 13 Apr. 1826, and voted against Lord John Russell’s resolutions condemning electoral bribery, 26 May 1826. He voted against mitigation of the death penalty for forgery, 23 May 1821, and, notwithstanding his mother’s Methodism, against condemning the indictment in Demerara of their missionary John Smith, 11 June 1824, and the Jamaican slave trials, 2 Mar. 1826. Oxford DNB. When reports that he had missed the debate and division on Wilberforce’s compromise motion on the Queen Caroline affair, 26 June 1820, were used to fuel constituency opposition to Beaufort in 1820-1, Somerset paraded with his father and another ‘200 persons of rank’ at Monmouth races in October, and signed and endorsed the Breconshire loyal address, 21 Jan. 1821. The Times, 29 Sept.; Bristol Mercury, 20 Oct., 6, 20 Nov.; Cambrian, 21 Oct. 1820, 20 Jan.; Seren Gomer, iv (1821), 61-62. Although asked by the county meeting to do so, he chose not to present or endorse Monmouthshire’s petition for abolition of sinecures and protection for agriculture, 6 June 1820, Bristol Mercury, 27 Mar., 10 Apr.; Cambrian, 15 Apr.; Tredegar mss 45/1516; 135/795; Seren Gomer, iii (1820), 218-19. but he presented others from Monmouthshire and Gloucestershire for action to alleviate agricultural distress, 26 Feb., 1 Mar., 23 May 1821. He campaigned for the unsuccessful candidate Sir John Nicholl* at the 1821 Oxford University by-election. Merthyr Mawr mss F/2/4, 20-24 Aug. 1821. He dissociated himself from the radical demands in his constituents’ distress petitions, 25 Mar., and disputed a claim by Joseph Hume that Monmouth’s petition for parliamentary reform was signed by the majority of the burgesses, 28 Mar. 1822. They retaliated on the 30th by adopting remonstrances criticizing Somerset. The Times, 9 Apr.; Bristol Mercury, 22 Apr. 1822; I.W.R. David, ‘Pol. and Electioneering Activity in S.E. Wales, 1820-52’ (Univ. of Wales M.A. thesis, 1959), 68. On 15 May 1822 he and Morgan confirmed that the distress complained of in Monmouthshire petitions (adopted during the ‘Scotch cattle’ riots) was genuine, but refused to sanction the abolition of ‘unnecessary’ pensions and places and tax reductions that they proposed as remedies. The Times, 24 Apr., 1, 7, 15, 16, 22, 28 May; Bristol Mercury, 27 Apr., 4, 11, 25 May, 1, 22 June 1822; N. Gash, Secretary Peel, 346. Somerset brought up a Gloucestershire petition against the beer retail bill, 17 July 1822. When he married Lord Carrington’s daughter on the 27th, Beaufort gave him £10,000 as part of his settlement and £30,000 was settled on his wife. PROB 11/1858/138; 2075/434; Gent. Mag. (1822), ii. 178.

Treasury meetings on the Hastings affair took up much of Somerset’s time early in 1823. Wellington mss WP1/758/14. He defended government policy on the barilla duties, insisting that the merchants who petitioned for their repeal had greatly exaggerated their distress, 5 June. He presented and endorsed Monmouthshire petitions against the Insolvent Debtors Act, 10 Mar., 12 May, and the truck system, 28 May, and one from the deanery of Stowe against concessions to Catholics, 15 Apr. 1823. The Times, 11 Mar., 13, 29 May 1823. In 1824 he brought up petitions against West Indian slavery, 27 Feb., the proposed new theatre in Cheltenham, 6 Apr., and the beer duties, 7 May. Ibid. 28 Feb., 7 Apr., 8 May 1824. That month he conducted negotiations with Wyndham Lewis*, who, having forfeited the 2nd marquess of Bute’s support, was keen to secure the Beaufort interest in Cardiff Boroughs at the next election. Bodl. Hughenden dep. D/1/D/53. On 18 Feb. 1825 he received a week’s leave because of ill health, and he did not apparently speak in debate or present petitions that session. He voted in the minority for the Leith docks bill, 20 May, and on 13 July 1825 he was a majority teller for delaying the Western ship canal bill, in which his father had a vested interest, and voted against adding a clause restricting the rights of the corporation to the Bristol town dues bill. After Nicholl declined to stand at the February 1826 Oxford University by-election, Beaufort gave his interest to Thomas Bucknall Estcourt* for whom, perceiving his weakness, Somerset directed the Beaufort agents to secure every possible vote. Merthyr Mawr mss F/2/9, 30 Jan., 2 Feb. 1826; L/206/32; Add. 40385, f. 173; NLW, Maybery mss 6559-60. The Monmouthshire coroners entrusted their petition for increased allowances to him for presentation, 17 Apr. 1826. The Times, 18 Apr. 1826. At the dissolution in June it was erroneously reported that Somerset would contest Bristol, but he personally assisted Beaufort’s candidates in difficult canvasses in the Monmouth and Cardiff Boroughs and came in unopposed for Monmouthshire. Glam. RO D/DA12/94 i and ii, 100, 104; Hughenden dep. D/1/D/70, 73-76; Cambrian, 23 Dec. 1825, 27 May, 17 June; Morning Chron. 10 June; The Times, 10 June 1826.

He divided against Catholic relief, 6 Mar. 1827, and was one of the ‘underlings’ whose resignations pleased the ‘Protestant party’ when the pro-Catholic Canning succeeded Liverpool as premier. Nottingham Univ. Lib. Denison diary, 14 Apr. 1827; Croker Pprs. i. 373. He divided with the Canning ministry against the disfranchisement of Penryn, 28 May, and presented a petition from Newport for repeal of the Test Acts, 1 June. He attributed his lifelong commitment to the cause of the insane to his appointment to the investigative committee on provision for pauper lunatics in Middlesex, 13 June 1827. T.G. Davies, ‘Welsh Contribution to Mental Health Legislation in 19th Cent.’, WHR, xviii (1996), 42-62, esp. 45-51. Somerset was in poor health when the duke of Wellington as premier appointed him a lord of the treasury in January 1828, and it was agreed that could remain in the country for a further two or three months and attend Parliament only ‘if major principles are under discussion’. Wellington mss WP1/914/21; 915/46. He took his seat after re-election, 21 Feb., and voted against repeal of the Test Acts, 26 Feb. He divided against Catholic relief, 12 May, having presented and endorsed hostile petitions, 29 Apr. 8, 16 May, and against ordnance reductions, 4 July. He presented Monmouthshire petitions against the friendly societies bill, 18, 25 Apr. 1828. In August he was pleased to be consulted by the home secretary Peel over appointments to the metropolitan lunacy commission on which he was to serve, and attendant legislation. Add. 40397, ff. 110-13, 219. Wellington’s decision to concede Catholic emancipation in 1829 had Beaufort’s approval, and Somerset chaired Peel’s London committee for the Oxford University by-election and offered cautious advice on its progress. Add. 40398, f. 313; Gash, Secretary Peel, 62-63. He voted for the relief bill, 6, 30 Mar. 1829, but presented hostile petitions, 3, 13 Mar. Taking charge of the lunatic regulations amendment bill, 13 Feb., 16 Mar., 3, 6, 10, 14 Apr., and the madhouse regulation bill, 3, 13 Apr., he defended the application of public funds that they proposed, and the work of the 1828 select committee. The Monmouth county hall bill was also now entrusted to him. NLW, Beaufort mss II/9877-8, 10718; CJ, lxxxiv. 55, 119, 131, 145, 181, 186, 214, 220. In October 1829, estimating support for a coalition ministry, the Ultra leader Sir Richard Vyvyan* counted the Somersets among the government’s most reliable supporters. Somerset voted with his colleagues against transferring East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 11 Feb., Lord Blandford’s reform scheme, 18 Feb., and enfranchising Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb. 1830. He divided against Jewish emancipation, 5 Apr., 17 May, and reducing the grant for South American missions, 7 June. He presented Monmouthshire petitions for tithe reform, 12 Mar., a £25 license fee for hawkers, 23 Mar., and abolition of the death penalty for forgery, 30 Apr., and against renewing the East India Company’s charter, 18 May. He did ‘nothing to oppose’ the Merthyr police bill sponsored by Bute, and despite the threat it posed to the prosperity of the other Bristol Channel ports, he deliberately refrained from opposing the 1830 Bute (Cardiff) canal bill at its second reading, 15 Mar., reserving his objections until its committee stage, when he presented hostile petitions from the industrialist Richard Blakemore and rival canal companies, 26, 27 Apr., which delayed its passage. NLW, Bute mss L72/28. He ordered detailed ‘summary abstracts’ of returns on pauper lunatics, 2 Mar., and tabled the metropolitan commissioners’ July 1829 report, 25 May. Intervening with increasing confidence and frequency in debate, he was one of the principal speakers for the sale of beer bill, 4 May, when he endorsed the competition it sanctioned and the need to reduce gin drinking and adulteration of liquor. Forwarding the select committee’s papers on the bill to Wellington afterwards, he conceded that they had relied too much on the testimony of brewers and publicans. Wellington mss WP1/1123/37. His return for Monmouthshire at the general election in August 1830 was ‘perfectly safe’ and was celebrated with great pomp. He attended to the other Beaufort constituencies and now brokered seats for the treasury. Mon. Merlin, 10, 17 July, 7 Aug.; NLW ms 18541B, Jnl. of Iltyd Nicholl, 5 Aug. 1830; Cent. Kent. Stud. Stanhope mss U1590/C130/9, Mahon to Stanhope, 19, 23, 24, 26 May; C138/2, Strangford to same, 21 May, C318/2, Mahon to Lady Stanhope [1830]; NLW, Aberpergwm mss 11.

Somerset was of course in the government minority on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830, and resigned with them. He proposed Peel as opposition leader in the Commons, 17 Nov., and became ‘one of the small group of men who worked to keep the party together during the difficult years of the reform crisis’. He was also involved from the outset in the establishment and management of the Carlton Club. NLW, Ormathwaite mss FG1/6, 17 and passim.; Three Diaries, 243, 257, 306-8, 315, 340, 349; Ellenborough Diary, ii. 441; Gash, ‘Organization of Conservative Party, 1832-46’, PH, i (1982), 138; Secretary Peel, 668-9. He was visiting his father at his manor of Heythorp, Oxfordshire, in late November 1830 when they were threatened by rioters, and a deputation from Monmouthshire arrived to urge the duke, as lord lieutenant, to take firm action against the ‘Scotch cattle’. Greville Mems. ii. 74; Gash, Secretary Peel, 618; NLW ms 18541B, 6-12 Dec. 1830. On 8 Dec. he presented several anti-slavery petitions and strongly defended the exemption from coal duties enjoyed by Bristol Channel ports east of Cardiff. He attended a party dinner hosted by Wellington at Apsley House, 15 Dec. 1830. Three Diaries, 35. Responding in his capacity as chairman of the metropolitan lunacy commission to criticism of their work by lord chancellor Brougham, 14 Jan., Somerset agreed that changes were necessary, but he hesitated to endorse those sanctioned by the Grey government and strongly opposed their Lunatic Act amendment bill, 23 Feb. 1831. Brougham mss, Somerset to Brougham, 14 Jan. 1831; Davies, 48. He presented a petition for repeal of the malt duties from Northleach, 8 Feb. He was appointed to the select committee on public accounts, 17 Feb., and was at the heart of discussions on opposition policy and tactics against the ministerial reform bill. He regarded its introduction, 1 Mar., as the ‘first day of the revolution’ and was dismayed at the futility of their opposition to it. Three Diaries, 52, 54, 57; Croker Pprs. ii. 108, 110; Bodl. Ms. Eng. lett. d. 153, f. 68; Stanhope mss C190/2, Somerset to Stanhope, 23 Mar. 1831. However, Greville and others subsequently blamed him (unfairly) for dissuading Peel from trying to kill the bill immediately, in order to safeguard, in the short term, Beaufort’s constituency interests. Greville Mems. ii. 229-30, 408; Gash, Sir Robert Peel, 9. The Speaker refused to hear his observations on the coal duties, 23 Feb., and he failed, when introducing a petition from Newport, 7 Mar., and again, 14 Mar., to make Lord Althorp as chancellor disclose details of his proposals for equalizing them. Instead ministers ensured that Somerset’s conduct at the treasury, where it emerged that one of Wellington’s bills in the Burnell case had deliberately been left unpaid, came under scrutiny. Wellington mss WP1/1178/7. Undeterred, he criticized the government’s proposals for taxing steam vessels, 16 Mar., and embarrassed them with pertinent questions on the coastal blockade when the navy estimates were presented, 25 Mar. Constituency opposition to Beaufort and the great landowners had increased, but (unlike Morgan and his son) it did not deter Somerset from voting against the reform bill at its second reading, 22 Mar., and he announced (before speaking on the truck bill), 12 Apr., that if it was committed he would move for the enfranchisement of Lincolnshire’s large towns, to try to ensure that the principle of property and population-based representation which it purported to enshrine was equitably applied. He divided for Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr., but claimed at the ensuing general election that he would have preferred to see ‘the bill continue in committee and passed in a modified form than for Gascoyne’s amendment to be taken as a test issue’. Monmouthshire and Gloucestershire were ‘in a ferment’ and Somerset, who canvassed personally at considerable risk, saw Worcester defeated in Monmouth and their uncle Lord Edward Somerset stand down to avoid defeat in Gloucestershire. D. Williams, John Frost (1939), 58-66; Cardiff Pub. Lib. Bute estate letterbks. ii. 274-5; Three Diaries, 91; Harrowby mss, Ryder to Harrowby, 6 May; Mon. Merlin, 19, 26 Mar., 2, 9, 16, 23, 30 Apr., 7, 14 May 1831. Monmouthshire was certain to return the reformer William Addams Williams, a lifelong Whig and Somerset’s seconder in 1820 and 1830, and Somerset avoided a contest there only through Morgan’s timely retirement. W.T. Morgan, ‘Co. Elections Mon. 1705-1847’, NLWJ, x (1957-8), 176-7; NLW, Llangibby Castle mss A161; NLW, Bute mss L74/34; Three Diaries, 91; Cambrian, 30 Apr. 1831. Pressed on the hustings to justify his refusal to attend county reform meetings and present pro-reform petitions, he acknowledged that ‘very much of the intelligence and respectability of the county’ favoured reform and claimed that his votes against it were ones of conscience, as he considered the ministerial bill ‘one of spoliation’. He insisted that being a Member was ‘a sacred trust’, not a ‘mere feather in my cap’, and refuted ‘libellous’ allegations that his family received £48,000 a year from public funds. Gwent RO, Evans and Evill mss D.25.1401; Spectator, 30 Apr. 1831. He recommended trying a test case under a quo warranto warrant before petitioning against Benjamin Hall’s return for Monmouth and, although this was not done, he presented Worcester’s petition, 22 June, and rejoiced in its success, 18 July 1831. He still doubted the legality of the Monmouth franchise, which the Commons committee had neglected to consider. NLW, Sir Leonard Twiston Davies mss (Twiston Davies mss) 5927, 5936-7, 5954, 5963.

Charles Arbuthnot* sought Somerset’s assistance to ensure a good opposition attendance when Parliament met, and his contributions at pre-session briefings were praised. Add. 57370, f. 73; Three Diaries, 93. He contrived to delay the reform bill’s reintroduction with questions on nuisances in Waterloo Bridge New Street and the boundaries of the Forest of Dean, 23 June, and, anxious ‘to maintain the war’, he employed questions on steam navigation and exchequer accounts, 8 July, Sierra Leone and Fernandez Po, 25 July, and custom house agents, 9 Sept. 1831, to similar effect. Hatherton diary, 26 July 1831. He voted against the reintroduced reform bill at its second reading, 6 July, to make the 1831 census the criterion for English borough disfranchisements, 19 July, and to postpone consideration of the partial disfranchisement of Chippenham, 27 July. He ordered returns of properties and tax assessments for Welsh towns, 4 Aug., and welcomed the decision to give Frome a Member, 5 Aug. Opposing the enfranchisement of Gateshead that day, he accused ministers of squandering the franchise wantonly on insignificant places while large and populous districts like Merthyr Tydfil remained inadequately represented. He endorsed the decision to give Glamorgan two county Members, 13 Aug., but joined Charles Williams Wynn in condemning the bill’s provisions for voter registration, 20 Aug. On 7 Sept. he vainly proposed dividing the Monmouth Boroughs constituency by adding Chespstow to Monmouth and Usk, and Abergavenny and Pontypool to Newport. To justify the change he compared the needs of the South Wales coalfield, of which Monmouthshire formed a part, with those of ‘over represented’ Cumberland, Durham and Northumberland. Rejecting the proposal, Russell accused him of failing to state ‘whether he founds the claim of Monmouthshire on a comparison with the Welsh or English representation’. Somerset replied that counties represented by cabinet members had been given an unfair advantage and cited ratios of Members to population to substantiate his allegation. His subsequent proposal that Abergavenny, Chepstow and Pontypool be added to the Monmouth group also failed. On the 12th he informed Peel, who was out of town, that he and

our friends think the sooner we get to the third reading the better, for delay no longer is of our service. There are notices of several amendments, but I do not think any of them likely to be strenuously supported excepting the revising the decision of the House so as to attempt to remove Guildford and the county towns out of B ... Althorp says he has not any amendments to propose with the exception of those of which he has given notice. He is to start them on taking the report into consideration tomorrow and I presume they will embrace some more Members for some of the Welsh counties. Add. 40402, f. 102.

He corrected Althorp’s claim that Pembrokeshire’s second borough seat was new, 14 Sept. He voted against the bill’s passage, 21 Sept., and the second reading of the Scottish measure, 23 Sept., and Beaufort voted to defeat the English bill in the Lords, 8 Oct. 1831. Badminton mun. Fm M4/1/19, 22.

Somerset endorsed the Dublin election petition alleging undue interference by government, 20 Aug., and voted to censure them, 23 Aug. 1831. He was against issuing the Liverpool writ, in order to consider the bribery there, 5 Sept., and as chairman of the committee which found against the 1830 Tregony election petitions, he protested at being called repeatedly to the House to consider Richard Gurney’s* petition against their decision and then finding the matter postponed, 5, 12, 14 Sept. CJ, lxxxv. 358, 377; lxxxvi. 795-6, 825, 827, 835. He assisted opposition candidates at the Dorset and Cambridgeshire by-elections, and was with his father in Bristol during the riots, of which he sent Wellington a detailed report, 3 Nov. Wellington mss WP1/1199/13; 1201/6. He realized immediately that the late decision to award Monmouthshire an additional county Member under the revised reform bill would be difficult to defend without sacrificing Merthyr, and deliberately refrained from voting at its second reading, 17 Dec. 1831. Llangibby Castle mss A162. He paired against it, 7 Feb., criticized its provisions for voter registration, 11 Feb., and polling, 15 Feb., and, having failed to delay schedules B and C, 23 Feb., voted against the proposed enfranchisement of Tower Hamlets, 28 Feb. 1832. Cheltenham, which he did not ‘much care ... for having a vote at all, for I do not think it one of those places that stand in need of the franchise’, had been awarded a Member, and though Somerset’s suggestion that it qualified for two on population size was dismissed, 2 Mar., his arguments for including Pittville in the constituency were heeded and the clause postponed, 5 Mar. Complaining that ministers had treated Wales unfairly, he recommended enfranchising Merthyr instead of Gateshead, 5 Mar., or Walsall, 9 Mar., and spoke of the inadequacy of the bill’s provision for the entire Bristol Channel area, compared to South Shields, 7 Mar. When Russell announced it on the 14th, he deplored the government’s ‘monstrous’ decision to deprive Monmouthshire of a third Member in order to give Merthyr separate representation; but though he was supported by leading Conservatives and Welsh Members, he failed by 191-146 to defeat it and make ministers find Merthyr’s seat elsewhere. He found less support when he complained again on the 19th. He divided against the bill’s third reading, 22 Mar. He secured changes to the boundary bill favourable to the Beaufort interest in East and West Gloucestershire and Stroud, but not Tewkesbury, 7, 8, 22 June, and endorsed Portman’s claim that Wareham should have been entirely disfranchised, 22 June. He supported a late attempt to have the writ for Aylesbury moved, 24, 25 July 1832.

As a member of the select committee that had recommended a gradual reduction in funding before closure of the Dublin Foundling Hospital, he criticized the large award made to them, 22 Aug. 1831. He co-operated with Addams Williams over the Monmouthshire roads bill and was glad to see the highways bill postponed and eventually timed out, 18 July 1832. He voted against Littleton’s truck bill, which Monmouthshire’s small ironmasters opposed, 12 Sept., but failed to have it amended, 12 Sept., or deferred, 5 Oct. 1831. Opposition divided with the West India Members against renewing the Sugar Refinery Act, 12 Sept. 1831, and Somerset spoke briefly for Burge’s motion to reduce the levy on West Indian sugars, 9 Mar. 1832. He also voted against the Vestry Act amendment bill, 23 Jan., and the malt drawback bill, 2 Apr., and for inquiry into smuggling in the glove trade, 3 Apr. He threatened to press for an investigation into the operation of the 1830 Sale of Beer Act, 3 Feb., and enquired about appointments to the poor law commission, 13 Feb., 4 Apr. He divided against amending the Irish tithes bill, 9 Apr, and when drawn by George Lamb that day to comment on treasury minutes relating to the Irish registry of deeds, covering his period in office, he could only confirm the need for an investigative committee. He queried several items in the estimates, 13 Apr., 7 June, the assessed taxes, 2 July, and civil list expenditure, 13 July. Attending to family business, he chaired the committee and helped to steer the Bridgwater and Taunton canal bill through the Commons, 27 Feb., 22 Mar., was a teller with Estcourt against the Purton Pill railway bill, 22 Mar., and expressed alarm at the manner in which the select committee’s recommendations were thrown out at the third reading of the Exeter improvement bill, 13 June 1832. Somerset was named with Lamb and Robert Gordon to bring in a bill to regulate the care and treatment of the insane, 24 June, served on the select committee, and strongly opposed the Lords’ amendments to it, 26 Sept. 1831. He was concerned that appointments were to be made by the home secretary and expenditure vetted by the Commons, and objected strongly to the right the Lords had given the lord chancellor to appoint commissioners, which the Commons rejected by 66-55, and helped to frame their objections for discussion at the ensuing Lords’ conference. Badminton mun. Fm M4/1/19; CJ lxxxvi. 558, 577, 642, 748, 829, 867-8, 874-5. He informed Beaufort:

We turned over Lord Brougham and his amendments to the lunatic bill last night, which was good fun enough, more especially as I hear he is in a fury about it. He is the most grasping man after patronage that was ever known. Badminton mun. Fm M4/1/2.

He threatened to oppose the revised bill, introduced, 3 Feb., if ministers retained the ‘objectionable clauses’, was appointed to the select committee on the measure, 6 Feb., obtained returns of confined lunatics, asylums and licensed houses, 5 June, and when it was again delayed, urged Lamb to make his brother the home secretary give it the government’s full backing, 15 June 1832. Declaring the Lords’ amendments ‘untenable’, 3 Aug., he joined Charles Ross and Williams Wynn in calling again on Lamb to make government act decisively; the bill received royal assent, 11 Aug. 1832. CJ, lxxxvii. 67, 70, 75, 172, 528,573-4, 578, 584; Davies, 48-49.

Asked by Peel during the general election campaign in November 1832 whether he thought the party should back Goulburn or Williams Wynn against Littleton, should Manners Sutton resign as Speaker, he replied:

Whether it be Wynn or whether it be Goulburn we shall not be enough to carry a Speaker against the ministers. I certainly hope we shall have even a stronger party than we had in this Parliament and I have no doubt ministers will have much less pliant majorities, nor do I think many of their professed friends will long adhere to them; but on the very first occasion that they should be so weak as to fail in their object of Speaker I cannot anticipate, and therefore we should rather argue on the supposition of defeat than success.

Setting personal preference aside, he chose Williams Wynn for being ‘less intimately connected with our party’ and the ‘better to be vanquished’. Add. 40403, f. 105. His time was now commanded by voter registration, the establishment of local committees, and the quest for funding and suitable Conservative candidates. Despite setbacks, which included defeats in Gloucestershire and Monmouth and compromise in Glamorgan, many durable networks of agents, attorneys, barristers and ‘Conservative’ landowners were formed, and notwithstanding his failure to introduce formal registration societies until 1841, he acquired a reputation as an outstanding party manager. Bute mss L75/122, 133-46, 149, 149; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 276, 333-6, 346-7; iii. 1-13, 19, 36, 71; Add. 40303, f. 105; Gash, PH, i. 137-9; M. Cragoe, Culture, Politics, and National Identity in Wales, 1832-1886, pp. 85-86. His return for Monmouthshire, where he was widely respected and had a strong committee, was not in doubt. Bute mss L75/122, 133-146, 149; Twiston Davies mss 4304-7, 4324, 4355, 6005; Mon. Merlin, 23 June, 15, 22 Dec. 1832. He retained his seat for life, contesting it only in 1847, when Worcester, as 7th duke, sought to oust him for supporting Peel’s decision to repeal the corn laws. Morgan, 178-84; The Times, 11 May 1846, 31 July, 9 Aug. 16 Sept.; Mon. Merlin, 17, 24, 31 July, 7, 14, 21 Aug. 1847. His health did not recover after the ordeal and he died in February 1848. The Times, 24 Feb.; Mon. Merlin, 26 Feb., 3 Mar. 1848; Von Neumann Diary, ii. 278. He had held office again as commissioner of woods and forests and chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster and was admitted to the cabinet in 1843, but was denied the Irish secretaryship he coveted because of fears that he would be cruelly ridiculed in the Irish press. Gash, PH i. 138-9; Sir Robert Peel, 278; Oxford DNB. Gladstone noted:

Lord G. Somerset affords I think a remarkable instance of a very good tempered and good humoured man with reconciliatory modes of proceeding in business, and I confess also that he seems to me scarcely a statesman; but he has abundant talents for administration, and a mind quick in finding objections and consequently of great use in the department of intercepting what is crude and rash. Add. 44777, f. 184.

He left everything as trustees to his widow and Lord Sandon*, having directed them to ensure that each of his five children received certain possessions to remember him by. PROB 11/2075/434; IR26/1818/398.