Seymour shared his older brother Henry’s interests in foreign travel and archaeology, funded out of the family’s considerable aristocratic wealth, but although in ‘form and feature not unlike his brother’, he evidently lacked his talents as a speaker and was often reproached for his ‘coarse speech’ in elections.
A ‘third cousin of the duke of Somerset on his father’s side’, as he billed himself, it was remarked in 1862 that ‘little was known about him’, except for his efforts to woo the Liberals of Exeter as a replacement for the ailing MP Edward Divett.
The death in quick succession of two MPs for Totnes, where the duke of Somerset was the electoral patron, offered the opportunity of escaping Exeter, where Seymour’s chances were said to be ‘ridiculously small’.
A regular but mostly silent attender in this period, Seymour voted steadily with the advanced Liberals on most issues, including in support of the abolition of university tests, 16 Mar. 1864, and an extension of the borough franchise, 11 May 1864, but was conspicuously absent from divisions on the ballot. He was founding member of the Danish Soldiers Sick and Wounded Relief Fund established on 24 Feb. 1864, but voted against censuring the policy of neutrality eventually assumed by the Palmerston ministry in the Danish-German war, 8 July 1864.
At the 1865 general election he offered again for Totnes as a supporter of Palmerston. Another highly charged campaign ensued, in which a Conservative challenger, Lieutenant Colonel W. G. Dawkins, took exception to Seymour’s comments on the hustings about his being ‘no longer a fighting man’.
In speaking of the question of non-intervention, I said that ‘fighting was the colonel’s trade, but it was not now’, implying what I then believed ... that you had left the army. I have now only just learned that instead of leaving the army you elected to be placed on half-pay: it was therefore not strictly correct to state ‘that fighting was no longer your trade’. For this error I beg to express my regret.
With regard to your suggestion that I should meet you at Wormwood Scrubs or elsewhere, in order to give you the opportunity of relieving Totnes at once of a representative not of her choice, I feel deeply sensible of your amiable intentions towards my constituents but at the same time imagine that the days are past when ‘the survivor’ is the gentleman to be elected by a constituency, and therefore I cannot be a consenting party to making myself ridiculous before the public.
Ibid.
A paper war ensued, in which Dawkins accused Seymour of a ‘needless and meaningless insult’ and of having secured his election through corruption.
After a motion calling for all those involved to be charged was proposed in the Commons, 9 Apr. 1867, Seymour rose to make an unusual maiden speech. Vigorously denying any wrongdoing, he insisted that he had been ‘entirely ignorant’ of the borough’s venality and had believed that the sums he had paid were ‘to clear some back debts and subscriptions (laughter)’. Accusing his critics of blatant hypocrisy, he warned the House that ‘if action was to be retrospective, it should include all those honourable gentleman, some of whom were sitting on the opposite side of the House ... who were implicated in the same degree’. On the advice of the Conservative solicitor-general the motion was withdrawn.
Seymour voted for the abolition of church rates, 7 Mar., and loyally supported the Russell ministry’s abortive reform bill, 27 Apr., 18 June 1866. The following year he was one of the ‘Liberal seceders’ who initially rebelled against Gladstone’s ‘rival bill’ to the Conservative reform measure, 8 Apr., although he was soon back in the minorities for the abolition of personal rating, 12 Apr., the disfranchisement of small boroughs, 3 June, the allocation of a third member to large towns, 3 June, and the introduction of cumulative voting, 5 July 1867.
The 1867 Reform Act’s disfranchisement of Totnes left Seymour without a seat at the 1868 general election, when he appeared on the hustings in Wiltshire South as the proposer of the Liberal Thomas Grove.
Between 1871-2 Seymour and his brother were leading witnesses in the celebrated Tichborne case involving a claimant to a fortune who professed to be their missing nephew Roger Tichborne. It was primarily on the basis of their testimony that the claimant was eventually exposed as an imposter and convicted.
Seymour died in March 1888, leaving three freehold houses in Mayfair and Kensington to his wife, along with all his personal estate, valued at £41,767. His manor house at Trent and collection of pictures were entailed on his only child Jane Margaret (1873-1943).
