Early career to the Revolution
Seymour was born at Preshute, Wiltshire, the younger son of a baron who died when he was only three. He succeeded his elder brother, Francis, who had inherited the dukedom from a cousin. When news of his brother’s death broke, Seymour was at school at Harrow.
In March 1679 Somerset had survived smallpox, causing contemporaries to note that ‘should he miscarry, Mr Seymour would be exalted’, a reference to the Speaker of the Commons in the previous Parliament, Edward Seymour‡, his distant cousin, both of them being descended from the first duke. As a minor, Somerset was excused attendance in the Lords in both May 1679 and October 1680. On 24 May 1681 he was reported to have arrived back in London, ‘not expected by his friends. He now embarked on the usual pursuits of a young peer; in October 1681, both Somerset and his step-father, Sir John Ernle‡, were reported to have fallen off their horses at Newmarket.
The next step was to contract a suitable marriage, especially as the family’s estates were insufficient to maintain the prestige of the premier Protestant dukedom. Possibly the greatest heiress of the time was Lady Elizabeth Percy and at around the time of her second marriage, to Thomas Thynne, it was reported that Somerset had been a rival suitor, but that her ‘present fortune’ of £4,000 p.a., ‘was enough to overcome the duke’s pretensions’, because it was deemed ‘too inconsiderable to maintain them both as they would be obliged to live’ until she came of age.
With such vast territorial estates, Somerset was able to exert influence over a number of parliamentary constituencies. His residence at Petworth, saw him engaged in the county contest for Sussex, and the boroughs of Chichester, Midhurst, and even Steyning, although even he admitted that his interest in the latter was slight. His ancestral estate in Wiltshire gave him influence at Marlborough. Further afield, he played a dominant role at Cockermouth, and possessed influence in Carlisle and in the counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland and Yorkshire. As chancellor of Cambridge, he played a role in the university’s seats, particularly in the election of Henry Boyle, future Baron Carleton, in a by-election in 1692, a seat he retained until 1705.
Somerset’s early forays into politics were largely symbolic and decidedly Tory. On 29 June 1682 he attended the court of king’s bench in support of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds.
Further marks of royal favour continued to be bestowed on the young duke. In July 1683, he reclaimed the lord lieutenancy of Somerset, which had been granted to Heneage Finch, 3rd earl of Winchilsea, during the minority of his brother. Early in September 1683 he was one of the nobility attending the king on a visit to Portsmouth.
Somerset was clearly perceived as a man of some influence at court. When the dowager countess of Manchester was discussing the moves of Ralph Montagu (his wife’s step-father), who had recently succeeded to the peerage and was attempting to rehabilitate himself at court, she wrote that his sister Lady Harvey was ‘very great with our great men and duchess of Portsmouth, duke of Somerset and duke of [Northumberland George Fitzroy, duke of Northumberland’.
The accession of James II saw Somerset continue to enjoy royal favour. On 16 May 1685 a warrant was issued for his admittance as a gentleman of the bedchamber.
Somerset was missing when the House resumed on 9 Nov. first sitting on 14 November. In all, over the whole session, he attended on 20 days, 47 per cent of the total, and was named to five committees. On 14 Jan. 1686 he was a member of the court which found Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington), not guilty of high treason. In August, the king designed to begin his progress with a night’s stay at Somerset’s residence of Marlborough House.
In January 1687, Roger Morrice believed that Somerset was one of a number of peers that would not ‘declare’ on the Test. In April Somerset stood bail at £5,000 for William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, and in May he was one of those peers still acting in that capacity.
At the end of October 1687, ‘Mr Percy, the trunkmaker’, re-entered the fray, making a claim to the Northumberland earldom before the court of honour, whereupon ‘the heralds declared they could find in their records nothing of his plea’. He responded to this by accusing them of having ‘torn his pedigree out of their books.’
Meanwhile, as opposition to James II increased, a number of lists were compiled in an attempt to gauge political opinion. Somerset’s reaction to the dilemma of serving the king, while respecting the laws governing Catholics was consistent with a list of 1687 the compiler of which thought Somerset opposed to the repeal of the Test Act; another listed him about May 1687 among lords opposed to James II’s policies; a third grouped him among lords listed about November 1687 as opposed to repeal of the Test Act; Danby classed him in 1687-8 as an opponent of James II in the Lords; and his name appeared on a list of those opposed to repeal published in the Harlem Courant in January 1688.
Despite his loss of royal favour, Somerset continued to play the role of local magnate in the North, in London and in Sussex. On 27 June 1688, he arrived at Cockermouth on a visit, presumably to bolster his political interest as lord of the manor.
Later that year, Somerset was listed as being in arms for the Prince of Orange.
Whatever the reasons for Somerset’s refusal of the Association, it did not presage his withdrawal from political activity, although his actions sometimes created confusion, as they did at the election to the Convention for Cockermouth. On 6 Jan. 1689, according to Thomas Tickell, Somerset had written to Cockermouth ‘that he presents Sir Orlando Gee to them and desires their votes for him in the room of’ Sir Henry Capell, future Baron Capell of Tewkesbury, who was expected to be returned for Tewkesbury. In a postscript Tickell added the election at Cockermouth was ‘uncertain till further order from the duke’.
The reign of William and Mary
Somerset was absent from the opening day of the Convention, 22 Jan. 1689, being present the next day. He attended 110 days of the first session of the Convention, 68 per cent of the total, and was appointed to 33 committees. On 25 Jan. together with Ormond, he introduced Northumberland into the Lords. Somerset was a consistent opponent of the decision in the Convention to offer the crown to William and Mary. On 29 Jan. he voted for a regency as the best way to preserve the Protestant religion and the nation’s laws. On 31 Jan. he voted against declaring the Prince and Princess of Orange king and queen. On 4 Feb. he was named to a conference about the vote of 28 Jan. concerning the king’s abdication. He then voted against agreeing with the Commons in the use of the word ‘abdicated’ instead of ‘deserted’. He was then named to the resultant committee to draw up reasons for a conference on the issue, and was named to manage conferences on the 5th and 6th. Later, on 6 Feb. he voted against agreeing with the Commons in using the words ‘abdicated’ and ‘that the throne is now vacant’, and entered his dissent against it.
At the beginning of February 1689, John Reresby‡ grouped Somerset among those who had ‘been active to bring in the Prince’, but who now spoke ‘in another strain. Some said the thing was gone further than they expected, others that they never believed the Prince would contend for the crown; and all were of opinion the crown ought to be set upon the Princess’s head, and so descend in its right course.’
On 12 Mar. 1689 Somerset and his estate servants received passes to go to Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland, and on 23 Mar. he received leave of absence from the Lords to go ‘out of town for a little time’.
On 31 May Somerset voted in favour of the bill reversing the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates; on 24 July he was named to draw up reasons for a conference insisting on the Lords’ amendments to the bill, duly being appointed to manage the conference on the 26th; and on 30 July he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill. On 2 July he entered his dissent to the resolution to proceed upon the impeachments of Sir Adam Blair and others. On 13 July he was appointed to draw up reasons in support of the Lords’ amendment to the succession bill in favour of the house of Hanover, and then the conference with the Commons on the 16th. On 25 and 27 July he was named to attend conferences on the bill collecting tea and other duties at the customs’ house. On 2 and 5 Aug. he was named to manage conferences on the attainder bill. He last attended on 17 August.
Somerset was not present when the second session of the Convention began on 23 Oct. and he was absent from the call of the House on 28 October. On 5 Nov. he informed the Speaker that because of ‘business of great consequence that will keep him in the country three weeks longer’ he could not attend the House and asked for leave of absence.
Somerset was present at the opening of the 1690 Parliament, on 20 Mar. 1690. He attended on 50 days of the session, 93 per cent of the total, even though he was absent from the call of the House on 31 Mar., and was named to six committees. On 28 Mar. the sheriffs of London and Middlesex were ordered to bring to the Lords Richard Liverseidge, ‘pretended to be protected’ by Somerset, it being noted later that the duke ‘never did nor never will grant protections’.
Somerset was missing on the opening day of the 1690-1 session, 2 Oct., and when he first attended the Lords on 6 Oct. he promptly left his proxy with Rochester. He attended on 37 days of the session, just over half of the total, being named to ten committees. A preference for the turf may explain his absence for on 2 Nov. it was reported that there would be a horse-race at Newmarket between Somerset and Thomas Wharton, future marquess of Wharton, for a prize of £100.
Somerset was missing from the opening of the 1691-2 session, and was absent from the call of the House on 2 November. He left his proxy, signed on 6 Nov. with Rochester, and he did not attend until 6 Feb. 1692. At the end of November 1691 the town of Marlborough lobbied Somerset to support the bill against hawkers and pedlars in the expectation it would pass the Commons (which it did not).
Somerset found himself drawn into the conflict between William and Mary and Princess Anne over the latter’s retention of the countess of Marlborough as her servant, despite her husband’s disgrace. When the Princess learnt on 13 Feb. 1692 that the king ‘would have my Lady Marlborough quit the Cockpit … she answered that she would remove thence her self, and accordingly sent to the duke of Somerset, to lend her Sion House, which he readily granted, after he had first waited on the king and asked his leave’.
In June, Somerset and Charles Gerard, earl of Macclesfield, stood bail for Robert Leke, 3rd earl of Scarsdale, who had recently surrendered to the government being suspected of treason.
At the end of 1692 or the beginning of 1693 Somerset was forecast by Ailesbury as likely to oppose the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, and on 2 Jan. 1693, he duly voted against reading the bill. On 3 Jan. he voted against the passage of the place bill. Later on the 3rd Somerset was one of those dining privately with the king at the home of William Russell, 5th earl (later duke) of Bedford.
On 16 Sept. James Vernon‡ noted that there was talk of a ‘congress’ at Petworth, where Rochester and Richard Jones‡, Viscount Ranelagh [I], and some others were going to meet Sir Edward Seymour.
On 10 Oct. 1694 Somerset wrote from Petworth to Carlisle of his intention to visit London for a few days before going to Newmarket for a race on the 24th.
Somerset was a party to the settlement of Wriothesley Russell, styled marquess of Tavistock, the future 2nd duke of Bedford, on his marriage with Elizabeth Howland, which took place on the 23 May 1695.
Somerset missed the opening of the 1695-6 session, on 22 Nov., first attending on 25 Nov. 1695. On 12 Dec. he was named to a committee to draw up an address on the inconvenience of the act establishing the Scottish East India Company, and as such was named to attend a conference on the matter on the 14th. On 3 and 7 Jan. 1696 he was named to manage conferences on the silver coinage bill. On the 9th he was named to draw up reasons protecting the Lords’ right to inflict pecuniary penalties in the bill, and on the 11th to the resultant conference. On 17 Jan. he entered his protest against the decision of the House to allow Sir Richard Verney, later 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, leave to be heard by counsel upon his petition for a writ of summons. He then protested again on 13 Feb. against the resolution conceding that Verney had a right to a writ of summons. On 24 Feb. he was appointed to draw up an address on the king’s speech on the Assassination Plot and to the resultant conference. He signed the Association on 27 February. Somerset’s attendance of the session was punctuated by two absences. He was missing after 18 Jan. until 6 Feb. and after 17 Mar. he did not attend until 30 March. In all, he attended on 86 days of the session, 69 per cent of the total, and was named to a further 21 committees. He also attended the prorogation on 28 July.
Somerset was missing from the opening of the 1696-7 session on 20 Oct., first attending on 23 November. On 30 Nov. he was appointed to manage a conference on the waiving and resumption of privilege. On 2 Dec. he was named to manage a conference on the bill remedying the ill state of the coinage, which he then reported. In the division over whether to read Goodman’s evidence at the trial of Sir John Fenwick‡ on 15 Dec., Somerset was one of the minority of 53 against reading his evidence. On the 18th Vernon noted that both Somerset and Ormond were for the second reading of the bill, despite being against reading Goodman’s evidence. However, on 23 Dec. at the third reading he was among those who ‘renounced their former vote’ and opposed the bill.
In June 1697, it was reported that the duchess of Somerset was to stand as godmother to Derby’s daughter, Lady Elizabeth Stanley, and at the end of September, it was reported that Somerset was to be godfather of a son of Sir John Mordaunt‡.
Somerset attended on the opening day of the 1697-8 session, 3 Dec. 1697. He was present on 77 days of the session, 59 per cent of the total and was named to 17 committees. After 7 Feb. 1698 he next attended on 15 Mar. when he voted in favour of the committal of the bill to punish Sir Charles Duncombe‡ and when he claimed a breach of privilege against two men for ‘molesting’ his workmen by pulling down a mill he had erected on one of his manors in Cumberland. Again several men were taken into custody. On 24 May he was named to manage a conference on the bill for the more effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness. At the beginning of June Godolphin reported to Lonsdale that Somerset was one of those against the Aire and Calder navigation bill in the Lords.
In the summer of 1698, preparatory to the general election, Somerset was heavily involved in the elections at Cockermouth, securing the return of Colonel William Seymour‡.
Somerset was missing on the opening day of the 1698-9 session, 6 Dec. 1698, first attending on the 9th. On 27 Jan. 1699 he was named to manage a conference on the bill to prohibit the export of corn. After 6 Feb. he next attended on 13 March. After 4 Apr. he was next present on 20 Apr. when he was named to a conference on the bill rendering more effectual the act restoring Blackwell Market. On the following day he was named to manage a conference on the bill making Billingsgate Market a free market for fish. On 25 Apr. he was named to a committee to draw up reasons for insisting on a proviso on the bill, and he was named to attend another conference on the bill on the 27th. On 3 May he was named to a conference on the paper duty bill to which the Commons had attached provisions relating to Irish forfeitures. In all he was present on 40 days of the session, 49 per cent of the total, and was named to a further 13 committees.
On the day Parliament was prorogued, 4 May 1699, the king dined with Somerset at Northumberland House, presumably recognition that Somerset’s support would be valuable as he weighed up his political options. On 9 May Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, reported a ‘great congress’ of ministers at Windsor, and erroneously that Somerset was likely to be made lord chamberlain. Somerset attended the prorogation on 1 June. In early September, John Vaughan, 3rd earl of Carbery [I] (who sat in the Lords as 2nd Baron Vaughan), Charles Montagu, the future earl of Halifax, John Smith‡, and Henry Boyle joined Somerset in hunting at Petworth.
Somerset was missing from the opening of the 1699-1700 session on 16 Nov. first attending on 19 December. He attended on 31 days of the session, 39 per cent of the total, and was named to a further two committees. He was present for only two days in February 1700: the 10th and 13th. That month he was forecast as one of those Lords in town and likely to support the bill continuing the East India Company as a corporation, but was absent for the actual division on 23 February. He next attended on 20 March. On 2 Apr. he was named to a conference on the bill for taking off duties on woollen manufactures. On 9 Apr. he was named to a conference on the Lords’ amendments to the land tax and forfeited estates in Ireland bill. Also on the 9th he acted as a teller in opposition to Robert Shirley, 8th Baron (later Earl) Ferrers, in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendments, being ‘a great stickler against the bill’, which would have done him no harm with the king.
During the summer of 1700 Somerset was being courted by Whig politicians. On 3 July, the recently dismissed John Somers, Baron Somers, dined with the duke at Sion House, before visiting the king at Hampton Court.
Meanwhile, with an election expected in mid-September 1700 Carlisle informed Somerset of the result of a county meeting, held two days before, which had decided to recommend Gilfrid Lawson‡ for Cumberland.
Somerset was present on the opening day of the session, 10 Feb 1701. He attended on 85 days of the session, 81 per cent of the total and was named to 19 committees. Somerset’s short absence at the end of February may have been occasioned by the death of his step-grandmother, the widow of the 1st Baron Seymour of Trowbridge, which apparently saw her leave him £1,500 p.a., although this was not a bequest made in her will.
Despite his votes against Somers, the 1701 session and its aftermath may well have been crucial in the emergence of Somerset as a Whig grandee, bringing into sharp relief, as it did, the problems of the Protestant Succession and the succession in Spain. Macky noted shortly afterwards that it was the ‘French king’s sending the duke of Anjou to Spain’ which facilitated this change. Swift believed that Somerset’s attitude changed when he was admitted into office ‘towards the close’ of William’s reign; henceforth he was ‘a constant zealous member of the other party’. As a supporter of the new ministry, on 28 June he was named as a lord justice in William’s absence and as such he signed the commission for the prorogation on 17 August.
Somerset’s shifting position was evident in his electioneering. In the contest for Yorkshire, in November 1701, Somerset ordered his servants and tenants to support the candidature of Arthur Ingram‡, Viscount Irwin [S], as did many Whig grandees, and he was returned without a poll.
About 18 Nov. 1701, Somerset ‘brought’ Arthur Maynwaring‡ to kiss the king’s hand for a place on the customs commission. Maynwaring later referred to this as the ‘little time that the king did anything for him he desired’. On 25 Nov. the Prussian diplomat Bonet referred to Somerset as a ‘nouveau Whig’, who had delivered the entire strategy of the Tories to his new allies.
Promotion beckoned for Somerset, when, on 27 Jan. 1702, James Lowther reported that ‘the king has told my Lord Rochester the duke of Somerset is to be made lord president’, and he was duly named on the 29th, following Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke’s move to the admiralty.
declared it also his opinion and said that he had no instructions from his majesty to recommend it to the House yet assured their Lordships that his majesty designed to propose it from the throne at his first coming to the House but this will prove a work of great difficulty and will require time to effect.
Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 26 Feb. 1702.
On 28 Feb. Somerset duly brought a message from the king recommending a union between England and Scotland.
The reign of Anne
On 8 Mar. 1702 Somerset was appointed to a conference on the death of King William and the accession of Queen Anne. Apparently he was one of those opposed to Rochester’s insistence that the new queen make reference to her English birth in her speech on 11 March.
Meanwhile, there had been much discussion about elections. On 19 Mar. James Lowther reported that a meeting in London had broken up to allow time to ‘consider with’ Somerset, ‘who is very hearty but at the same time, almost angry with everybody that did not help him in the last election at Cockermouth’. One of the questions being asked was whether Somerset ‘will be content with one at Cockermouth’.
As early as April 1702 Somerset had been talked of as a candidate for mastership of the horse. On 9 July he was named to the post, with a warrant being issued on the 20th.
Somerset was present on the opening day of the 1702-3 session, 20 Oct. 1702. He attended on 66 days of the session, 77 per cent of the total. As Master of the Horse he was used by the Lords on occasion to convey messages to the queen. On 19 Nov. he was one of three peers ordered to attend her with their address asking that William Lloyd, bishop of Worcester, not be removed as lord almoner ‘till he be found guilty of some crime by due course of law,’ which he reported on the following day. On 30 Nov. Somerset moved that the House give thanks to Marlborough for the success of the campaign that summer, which was then delivered by Lord Keeper Wright. On 5 Dec. Somerset attended a meeting of Whigs at Wharton’s house in Dover Street, possibly about the occasional conformity bill.
On 9 Jan. 1703, in the debate on an address to assure the queen that the House was ready to comply with the proposals of the Dutch, Somerset asserted that he had ‘dissented’ in the Cabinet when its members had discussed whether the matter could be moved in Parliament without a prorogation, only for Rochester to reply that, if so, it ‘was so modest, that I believe nobody took notice of it’.
Somerset’s outlook was now that of a minister. On 12 Mar. 1703 he wrote to Stanhope that ‘such is our present misfortune that by the violence of a party, men are put into office for no other reason’, a prevailing theme of his correspondence during Anne’s reign.
In 1703 Somerset attempted to get Stanhope appointed as envoy to Turin.
On 4 Nov. Somerset joined in the Kit Kat’s commemoration of William III’s birthday.
Somerset had left London to meet the archduke on 25 December. He landed at Portsmouth on 26 Dec. and was conveyed to Petworth en route to Windsor. He returned there with the archduke on 31 December. When storms forced the archduke to disembark at Portsmouth, Somerset went down to the coast to accompany him to Petworth, although they also appear to have stayed at Newport in the Isle of Wight. This explains his absence from Parliament from 23 Jan. to 7 Feb. 1704 inclusive, the archduke embarking again from Portsmouth on 4 February.
Possibly as part of an attack on Lord Keeper Wright, Somerset was at the forefront of the request on 15 Mar. 1704 for complete lists of j.p.s, to which was added on the following day a request for a list of those dismissed from the bench.
On 17 Apr. Somerset attended ‘a great feast at my Lord Halifax’s at Westminster’ in company at which ‘about 50 persons of honour and quality were present all men of a kidney’.
we were at first in great hopes, of a general rout amongst them of the same kidney but we were disappointed, for it is not like to go any further at present for we are still on the old foot of just making an offer in doing well, and then to stop short.
Stanhope mss U1590/C9/28, Somerset to Stanhope, 30 May 1704.
On 26 June Somerset was one of a number of Whig grandees, including Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, Sunderland and between ten and a dozen ‘other great Lords’, who attended the court of exchequer in support of Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, who was being sued for a debt of £91,000 owed to the crown. On 14 Aug. Somerset was at Petworth, having recently returned from ‘a long journey which my own private affairs had obliged me to make into the west’. At the end of the month Somerset was annoyed by the failure of the queen to knight Joseph Wolf, one of the sheriffs of London, though this was done on 6 September.
Somerset continued during the summer on a round of social and political engagements. On 7 Sept. he attended the service of thanksgiving at St Pauls. He also enjoyed success with his horses at races at Quainton and Newmarket. At the end of October he was one of those peers that accompanied the new lord mayor, Sir Owen Buckingham‡, to dinner at Drapers’ Hall. The death of Lewis Oglethorpe‡ at the beginning of November, saw Somerset succeed in his attempt to have Thomas Meredyth‡ appointed as his successor as an equerry to the queen, a project which had been on his mind since the opening months of the reign.
Somerset was present on the opening day of the 1704-5 session, 24 October. He attended on 74 days of the session, three quarters of the total, and was named to a further 36 committees. On 15 Nov. the proxy of Henry Howard, 5th earl of Suffolk, was registered to him and on 22 Nov. that of Coventry. On 29 Nov. it was Somerset who helped the queen to the throne, before the debate on the Scotch act of security, a gesture of support for the Godolphin ministry. On 14 Dec. following Mohun’s successful motion that the thanks of the House be given to Marlborough upon his first sitting in the House, Somerset added that Lord Keeper Wright ‘might be desired to be more full, than usual, in expressing the sentiments of their Lordships’.
On 6 Jan. 1705 Somerset accompanied Marlborough to a feast in his honour held in Goldsmiths Hall.
On 27 Feb. 1705 it was reported that Stanhope had been made a brigadier ‘by mediation of the duke of Somerset after his zeal in the House against places had given offence to the court and made it doubtful whether he should be turned out of the post he was in or preferred to a better.’
With an election due in 1705, preparations were made early in some counties. At some point, probably in the second half of December 1704, Somerset, Wharton, Bolton and Evelyn Pierrepont, 5th earl of Kingston, met several Wiltshire gentlemen in London and agreed that Shaftesbury’s brother should join with Ashe to contest the county, although in the event Maurice Ashley did not stand.
On 27 Apr. Somerset’s assessment of Cambridge University– believing that Francis Godolphin, future 2nd earl of Godolphin, would be elected with either Arthur Annesley, future 5th earl of Anglesey, or Sir Isaac Newton‡ - was wide of the mark as Annesley triumphed with Dixie Windsor‡.
Somerset returned out of Sussex, where he had been for ‘some days’ on 20 July 1705. On 25 Aug. he attended the thanksgiving service at St Pauls.
Somerset was present on the opening day of the 1705-6 session, 25 Oct. 1705, attending on 56 days of the session, 59 per cent of the total. He was missing from the attendance list after 1 Nov. until 6 Dec. although he was not marked absent at a call of the House on 12 November. On that day Coventry’s proxy was registered to him. On 17 Nov. he left his own proxy with Godolphin. Somerset then went down to Wiltshire to ensure the victory of his son at the Marlborough by-election. He was certainly in Marlborough by 22 Nov. and reported success to Cowper on 27 Nov. when he intimated that he would be back in London in a week.
On 11 Jan. 1706 Somerset dined with Francis Newport, earl of Bradford, Marlborough, Cowper, Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, and several other Lords, though ‘nothing material’ transpired. The following day the same company, with the addition of Wharton, dined at Marlborough’s.
By 3 Apr. 1706 Somerset was at Petworth, where he was kept up-to-date with events by Sir Charles Hedges‡.
Somerset was present at the prorogation on 21 Nov. 1706, and the opening day of the 1706-7 session on 3 December. He was rarely present before 20 Jan. 1707, attending in all on 48 days of the session, 56 per cent of the total, and was named to 22 committees. He also maintained his whirl of social engagements, many of them with political overtones. On 15 Dec. Ossulton dined at Somerset’s.
The disposal of his children was much on Somerset’s mind in 1707. On 28 Mar. he had made an enquiry of John Holles, duke of Newcastle, about his daughter Lady Harriet Holles for his eldest son, an approach he renewed in February 1711, but to no avail.
On 19 Aug. Somerset wrote to Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester, that ‘all our affairs here at home do go just in the same dull train as when you left us, neither faster nor backwarder’, and that he was ‘going for a month to Petworth and then I return to wait on the queen to Newmarket where she intends to be the last day in September or the first in October’.
Somerset was present on the opening day of the 1707-8 session, 23 October. He next attended on 19 Nov. being present in all on 66 days of the session, 62 per cent of the total. On 6 Dec. he tried to entice Coventry to Parliament ‘tho’ your lordship stayed no longer then to take the oaths &c thereby to qualify yourself to make a proxy’.
Somerset was present in the Lords on 8 Jan. 1708, the second day after the Christmas adjournment. On 7 Feb. he entered his protest against the passage of the bill for rendering the Union more complete, in line with Godolphin, Marlborough and the court against the Junto and their Squadrone allies.
Somerset was able to exercise some patronage in his post as master of the horse, and following the death in March of William Walsh‡ he named major general Thomas Meredyth as his replacement as ‘gentleman of the horse’. Somerset was equally at home in forwarding the parliamentary careers of others. In the 1708 election he supported the candidature of James Lowther in Cumberland, and at Cockermouth, Somerset and Wharton shared the spoils in an unopposed election.
However, the duchess of Marlborough also thought that Somerset had the power to ‘hurt’ the Whigs by sowing divisions in their ranks. In June he appears to have had this intention when he informed Wharton that the queen had a personal objection to granting office to Somers, ‘upon account of his having disobliged the Prince’, rather than any aversion to the Whigs as a whole and suggested that Wharton be put forward instead – all done with the air of a ‘great minister’. Wharton refused to take the bait and remained steadfast to his party. Marlborough was concerned he and Godolphin would be implicated in the plan, telling his wife ‘I can’t be so indiscreet as to employ Somerset in anything that is of consequence’.
Maynwaring was also called upon to convince Halifax that he should not fall in with Somerset’s divisive plans, pointing out that ‘there could be nothing so ridiculous, after carrying such a majority for the next Parliament, as to let it be broke to pieces by those that have no hopes of ever rising again, but by their divisions’. Halifax said he would talk to Somerset and ‘endeavour to convince him that they two (as great a man as his grace was) should make but a sad figure if they thought to leave their friends, and a worse if they pretended to carry on the party alone’. Again, Maynwaring felt that there was a danger that Wharton would perceive Godolphin’s hand behind Somerset’s manoeuvring.
Not that Godolphin or the Whigs could ignore Somerset’s potential influence with the queen. On 5 Oct. 1708 Godolphin and Somerset went in a coach to Newmarket, the latter having already been used by the former to bolster his arguments to the queen for coming to an agreement with the Junto.
our sovereign … is not so difficult to deal with as he appears to be, especially as to the getting him to do what one wishes, provided there be time for it, and he be not pre-engaged. For tis only laying a thing carelessly before him in discourse, and if it be any matter in which the exercise of his power may appear, or his interest may be increased, he is sure to catch it, and afterwards to make it his own.
Add. 61459, f. 115.
Not surprisingly, therefore, on 16 Oct. Maynwaring wrote of Somerset’s displeasure at being left out of a meeting hosted at Newmarket by John Moore, bishop of Ely: ‘tis certain he will be very troublesome if he be kept out of their secrets and more so if he be let into ’em; so that they will have a fine time either way’. On the same day that Maynwaring wrote this missive, Sunderland had accused Somerset of being a dupe of the ministers, and then been forced to assuage the ‘Seymour blood’ by explaining himself and his plans to ‘force’ ministers to comply with Whig demands. On 18 Oct. Maynwaring reported that Somerset had sent to see Wharton that morning and that the duke ‘is extremely discomposed’.
On an analysis of the 1708 Parliament, Somerset was classed as a Whig, although the markings for the Lords probably referred to the Sacheverell affair in 1710. Somerset was present at the opening of the 1708-9 session, 16 Nov. 1708, where he served as one of the queen’s commissioners owing to her ill health. On 19 Nov. together with Ormond, he introduced James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S], into the House as duke of Dover. He did not attend after 16 Apr. 1709, having been present on 60 days of the session, 65 per cent of the total, and been named to 23 committees.
Meanwhile, the duchess of Marlborough had written to Somerset’s wife on 20 Dec. 1708 of her belief that Somerset’s attitude to her had changed since she had seen him at Windsor, which Sarah later attributed to their having ‘great designs against me, but I did not discover them till some time after this letter’. Somerset’s wife denied a rift and noted that her husband ‘was under some uneasiness with the thoughts that of late you looked on him with a reservedness so different from what you used to do.’
On 14 Jan. 1709 Somerset wrote to Marlborough ‘of the usual high hand some people have already carried themselves towards the queen’, meaning the Junto, which caused Sarah to comment later that ‘when his grace writ this letter he was pleased to be angry at the Whigs and with what they did in the Parliament’.
On 4 Mar. 1709 Nicolson referred to ‘Somerset’s kindness in the Whitehaven bill’, although on the 5th he noted that the bill was ‘hardly allowed (by duke of Somerset) to pass the grand committee’. Even so, it was reported by Halifax without amendment. On 13 Mar. around 30 gentlemen were entertained at Somerset’s by the opera singer, Mrs. Tofts. On 17 Mar. Somerset dined with a number of Whigs at Ossulton’s.
On 7 Apr. Godolphin reported the presence of both Somerset and Devonshire at Newmarket. On 19 Apr. Godolphin believed that Somerset favoured the appointment of Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, for a role in the peace negotiations, rather than himself. On 23 May Somerset wrote from Marlborough to the duchess of Marlborough to thank her ‘for sending so early the good news of an ensuing peace that all people must wish for, tho some may be sorry it is so good that they cannot find fault with it and others that they had not a hand in the making of it.’ He attended the prorogation of 23 June. In June and again in August Somerset was one of those peers engaged in lobbying the queen to employ General George Maccartney, although with little success given the queen’s resistance to the idea, following his conviction for rape.
On 1 Aug. 1709 Maynwaring offered the following on Somerset’s ‘opinion’ of himself as ‘being mighty useful and important about the queen’s person: there is one thing very unlucky to men of his grace’s character, which is, that those who are so forward to undertake everything are generally fit for nothing.’ On 9 Aug. Maynwaring reported that Walpole was ‘in disgrace’ with Somerset, who had thus approached Henry Boyle to lobby him on behalf of Colonel Breton.
Somerset’s main complaint against Godolphin was ‘for hindering his project of being a great man at Court’. On 23 Sept. Maynwaring wrote to Sarah about Somerset’s dissatisfaction with Marlborough and particularly Godolphin:
nothing can be so ridiculous as the situation he is in at Court; for a man that has no talents to do any one thing in the world to think that he is to do every, and to have all preferments pass through his hands, is something so much out of the way that it is hard to find a name for it. But people that are good for nothing in any party, when they are encouraged to make a break and division, think from that time that they are the only useful people.
Add. 61460, ff. 39-42.
Maynwaring’s opinion seems to have mellowed a little by about 13 Oct. when he wrote that Somerset’s ‘resentments and uneasiness proceed from a right principle in him, though he mistakes in his judgment’, and that ‘being vain and loving to have court and applications made to him, he does not distinguish enough to know that the disappointments he meets with arise from the wrong solicitations he engages in, and not from any disrespect or ill-will towards him’. When Maynwaring had advised Somerset to avoid making divisions among the Whigs, the duke had replied that ‘he did live very civilly with Somers and Sunderland’, and did not say a word against Orford when the matter of the admiralty was discussed. Without Somerset ‘those worthless people that now shelter themselves under him, must return to the old body of their party’. Around this time, October 1709, Maynwaring distilled the essence of Somerset’s influence down to his ability to ‘keep an interest with many people, by making them drunk every Sunday and receiving any applications they make in such a manner as to convince them he would do whatever they ask, tho ever so unreasonable, if it were in his power’. At this time Somerset was endeavouring to persuade Godolphin to grant Rivers a pension, which Marlborough thought would make Somerset ‘troublesome’.
Somerset attended the prorogation of 6 Oct. and in October he also secured a regiment for his son, Hertford.
Somerset was equivocal when the crisis over the disposal of Essex’s regiment to Abigail Masham’s brother, John Hill‡ broke in January 1710. Maynwaring noted that ‘since the discontents of 39 [Marlborough] were discussed at 13’s [Somerset], I am sure 42 [queen] will be prepared for whatever is said.’ Nevertheless probably on 18 Jan. Maynwaring spent two hours with Somerset, but found him not keen to ‘come in at the end of a business that had been concerted with others’, although he said he had spoken to the queen on Marlborough’s absence from Council that ‘if he was dissatisfied, whether right or wrong, I thought we were undone both at home and abroad.’
Fall of the duumvirs and the Oxford ministry
The acute political antennae of Robert Harley identified in Somerset’s rifts with the Junto and devotion to the queen, a potential ally in his attempts to undermine the ministry, not least because, as Godolphin himself acknowledged, he was ‘one of the greatest favourites’ of the queen.
Harley’s opportunity to destabilize the ministry came with the impeachment of Dr Henry Sacheverell. St John had sounded out Shrewsbury and found him keen to move on the impeachment provided it was in concert with Somerset and Argyll. Likewise, on 9 Mar. St John told Harley, ‘I shall see Lord R[ivers] after he has been with the duke of Somerset.’
Some commentators believed that Somerset and Devonshire were behind the appointment on 11 Mar. of Sir Thomas Parker†, future earl of Macclesfield, as lord chief justice, a key appointment in the middle of the trial, and one of the most prominent managers of the impeachment.
labours hard against us, and makes use of the queen’s name to South and North Britains [sic] with a good deal of freedom. I doubt he is pretty sure of not being disavowed and I believe him entirely linked with the opposite party, upon the foot of knowing the queen’s inclinations and flattering them, but is so vain and so simple as not to be sensible, he is uncapable of being anything more than what he is, or that that scheme is not supportable above six months.
Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1437.
Somerset was listed as absent on 20 Mar. from the voting on whether Sacheverell was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. Later that day Godolphin confirmed that ‘Somerset did not vote. Some of his friends said he was sick, but I fancy it was only his profound wisdom that kept him from the House’, and made him take the waters at Epsom. When the House came to consider the question of Sacheverell’s punishment on 21 Mar. Somerset was crucial in ensuring that the proposal that he be barred from preferment during his suspension of one year was defeated by one vote, calling Queensberry back to the chamber to vote against it. On this occasion Godolphin added that ‘the conjunction of Somerset and Rivers with Argyll and his brother [Archibald Campbell, earl of Ilay, [S], later 3rd duke of Argyll [S]] has been the great occasion of this disappointment’. As Anne Clavering put it Somerset was ‘one whom the queen of the Friday [17 Mar.] had, in civil terms, asked a vote, and yet drunk the waters the Monday [20] and cast us of Tuesday [21]’. On 30 Mar. Godolphin reflected on the queen showing ‘a great deal of weakness in countenancing and supporting the folly and impertinence of Somerset’. On 8 Apr. Marlborough denounced the ‘knavery and folly’ of Somerset, who ‘if he were not countenanced by the queen, he would not dare to act as he does, so that the Whigs should endeavour to have him mortified’.
Somerset’s dalliance with Harley led to demands that he be purged from the Kit Kat Club. Brydges reported on 7 Apr. that ‘Thursday was sevennight’, [30 Mar.] Somerset had been expelled from the Club ‘by a vote brought in ready cut and dried by Lord Wharton: the crime objected, the words of the vote say, was for being suspected to have held conferences with Robin the Trickster’.
By this point Somerset was deeply involved in plotting a reconstruction of the ministry. On 9 Apr. Shrewsbury wrote to him concerning his reservations about taking office on his own, although this did not deter him from accepting the post of lord chamberlain on 14 April. On 15 Apr. Godolphin wrote to the queen concerning the ill consequences of employing Shrewsbury, which would ‘make every man that is now in your cabinet Council, except the duke of Somerset and Queensberry run from it, as they would from the plague’. Godolphin thought Harley was behind Shrewsbury’s appointment, although Somerset ‘gives himself the air of it very much, but he will be one of the first and the most mortified by it’.
nobody would be so much hurt by 28 [Shrewsbury] as 13 [Somerset], who fancied he had brought him in; for all that officious part of attendance, setting 42’s [queen’s] chair at Council, leading about &c, which he had taken upon him, and was no part of his office, 28 would do so much better than him, that in a very short time 42 would show that she had little occasion for his service.
He continued that:
so much trouble is occasioned by Abigail and Harley, under the cover of 13 [Somerset], who knows not all the while what consequence any one thing will have that he fancies he is doing, but is ruining people that have been friendly to him, to set up others that will despise him.
Ibid. f. 217.
On 19 Apr. Maynwaring informed Sarah that Somers had been called to a meeting with Somerset that day, at the latter’s request, although he could not discern the reason for the meeting, adding somewhat tartly that ‘tis more likely that 13 [Somerset] has no meaning at all, at least none of his own.’ Also, on 19 Apr. Maynwaring reported on Sunderland’s meeting with Somerset, whereby the latter made great professions of friendship to the Whigs ‘and an utter abjuration of Mr Harley, whom he swears he only met by chance at the duke of Argyll’s, but neither there, nor anywhere else ever spoke with him of any business’. Only Godolphin continued in ‘disgrace’ with Somerset. On 23 Apr. Somerset hosted a dinner where ‘there was a great deal of company’.
On 8 May Marlborough wrote of his disapproval of the rapprochement between Somerset and the Whigs, which he felt was merely to accept the ‘false profession of Somerset after his base behaviour to them all, and his continuing to own his enmity to Godolphin and Marlborough’. On 12 May, Maynwaring referred to Shrewsbury being shut up everyday with Harley and Somerset.
In June 1710 the duchess of Marlborough lamented the possible removal of the Whigs in office to make way for Tories and ‘which is still more strange, to make the duke of Somerset a great man and a first minister’.
On 3 July Godolphin noted that Vrijberghen’s interview with the queen had been used by Somerset and Shrewsbury to suggest that the States-General and Heinsius had taken too much upon themselves in seeking to persuade her not to dissolve Parliament. Other observers were keenly aware of Somerset’s influence at this point: on 10 July, Charles Berkeley, 2nd earl of Berkeley, sought to ensure a smooth succession for his son as lord lieutenant of Gloucestershire by approaching Somerset as an appropriate agent. That month, Somerset was lobbied by James Lowther over the Irish coal bill, which was later rejected by a committee of the privy council and then by the full council.
In July Somerset (together with Shrewsbury) continued to hold many secret meetings with Harley, phrases such as ‘you shall find a servant at the gate under the clock to conduct you the private way to your most humble servant’ littering his correspondence.
Godolphin’s removal marked the high-point of Somerset’s satisfaction with the ministerial changes. At some point shortly after the change in the treasury, Joseph Addison‡ opined that Somerset ‘represents himself as actuated by personal picques in what he has done, and has resolved to adhere to the Whiggish principles. It is generally said he is fallen off from the new ministers, and that he has recommended Whigs to all his boroughs’.
On 22 Aug. Godolphin wrote of ‘some great uneasiness happened between Somerset and Shrewsbury’, and that Somerset had been ‘absent (all of a sudden) these eight or ten days, and declares everywhere publicly for Parliament as it now stands’. Also on the 22nd Henry St John gave the Tory view of Somerset, ‘I expect him to be very much out of humour. It’s prodigious to see a man so zealous for a proposition and so averse to everything necessary to support and make that good’. By 25 Aug. news of Somerset’s wavering had reached Durham, from whence Thomas Conyers‡ wrote to Harley: ‘I hear the duke of Somerset is now against us. I thought he was for us, therefore went twice to Newcastle to prevent their setting up another to throw out Lord Hertford, so if you would have him out be pleased to let me know.’ On 29 Aug. Godolphin wrote ’I hear from all hands that Somerset declares publicly for the Whigs in general, and particularly against the enemies of Parliament’. On 1 Sept. Somerset dined with Dartmouth and Henry Boyle and ‘a great deal of such choice company’.
On 1 Sept. William Bromley‡ found the delays in the formation of the ministry ‘imputed’ to Somerset, who had ‘been very serviceable, but of late intolerable, or to use your friend Sir Tom’s word, impracticable. They have been unwilling to break with him, because a certain person has a kindness for him, and therefore all means have been tried to make him easy’. If such means had no effect they would ‘break with him’.
On 5 Sept. 1710, Wentworth wrote that ‘the town’ gave Somerset ‘the character of being very whimsical and changeable as to his resolves’. On 10 Sept. Somerset told Sir Peter King†, the future Baron King, that ‘he was, is, and ever would be a Whig, that he would serve them in all elections, and would oppose a dissolution to the utmost’, and that he had never consented to the replacement of the duke of Bolton as lord lieutenant of Hampshire by Henry Somerset, 2nd duke of Beaufort.
Godolphin had confirmed this on 12 Sept. when he wrote that Somerset ‘grows more and more uneasy and his audiences of late are very much reduced’.
tis certain that 13 [Somerset] does not now see 42 [Queen] so many minutes in a day as he used to do hours. So that he has played a wise game, but the judgment upon him is just. And if it were not for the hopes of making his Lady great, by all accounts I hear, he would almost be ready to retire.
Add. 61461, ff. 85-86.
On 15 Sept. Wentworth informed his brother of ‘a report about the town that the Whigs had got his grace again, for they say he often flys out, and is angry if things are not just as if he would have them. I don’t send you this as a truth but to show some people are very angry with him, and would have him pass for an unsteady man.’
Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, later recorded that Somerset ‘complained openly of the artifices had been used, to make him instrumental to other people’s designs, which he did, among others, to myself’. Apparently on 26 Sept. Somerset wrote to Meredyth acknowledging that he had acted unwisely during the summer and pledging to be firm to the Whigs. The next day, Somerset wrote from Petworth to Newcastle having arrived the previous day ‘to take care to keep out as many Tories and Jacobites in this new Parliament as I can. I am glad to find so true a spirit among the poor discarded Whigs as to unite and keep out the common enemy’. As such he requested Newcastle’s interest in the Sussex county election.
have the mortification to have his son thrown out in Northumberland, by a man who is not worth above two or three hundred pound a year, which sure must be a great humiliation to that high blood when they see neither their birth nor money can prevail, but one can’t be sorry for any that has given up the honour and interest of their country upon a picque tho’ they had repented, much less when they are such hipocrites.
Add. 61463, ff. 77-78.
However Hertford was returned top of the poll.
On 2 Oct. 1710 Lady Cowper wrote to Sarah that ‘I don’t at all wonder the new ministry are weary of the duke of S[omerset]. I thought he had been gone into the country.’
Somerset came to Hampton Court and looked as he used to do, but without doubt but he’s inwardly nettled to have return to court, with the loss of the elections he has endeavoured to carry, and to see he was so much out in his judgment, as to think the Whigs would have a great majority in the new House. … The part the duke of Somerset has acted and is like to act is looked upon with very contemptible eyes by both parties.
Wentworth Pprs. 149-50.
Halifax later reported to Newcastle that Somerset had come to court on 20 Oct. ‘had a long audience, and a very rough one on his part’; he had then left on the 23rd ‘to avoid the council, to which he pretends to go no more, but is gone with the queen to Windsor.’
Somerset may have lost political influence, but he retained his office and maintained his position at court. At the beginning of November James Craggs‡ thought him ‘highly discontented, yet ‘tis not sure he’s quit’.
Somerset was present at the opening of the 1710-11 session on 25 Nov. 1710. His attendance was very poor compared to previous sessions: he was present on a mere 16 days of the session, 14 per cent of the total. Royal favour continued to see rewards sent in his direction, Hertford being made governor of Tynmouth in place of Meredyth in December 1710. However, Somerset had laid claim to the post as early as August 1707, citing the tenure of the place by his wife’s family and her estates in the area, and he had received a promise of the post for his son in 1707, before it was given to his protégé, Meredyth.
entertained me with a long discourse of the peace, things he had said to the queen of the ministry, of his being irreconcilable to ’em; and at last how the queen over-persuaded him to keep his place, but that he would not come to the council. On the whole he appeared to me a false mean spirited knave, at the same time he was a pretender to the greatest courage and steadiness.
Cowper Diary, 50.
Somerset attended the Lords on 20-23 Dec. 1710, and 2-3 Jan. 1711. At the beginning of January 1711 his youngest son, Charles, died of smallpox, which may partly explain his absence until 22 February. Somerset also avoided the most contentious issue of Spain, which resulted in a series of votes in January.
On 22 Apr. 1711 Somerset wrote from Marlborough to thank Harley for his news, having been there since 16 Apr. and hoping to be at Petworth by the 26th, for a stay not exceeding ten days. He pressed upon him a petition from the corporation in favour of a local man to be receiver of the leather duties. In May 1711 he was one of those rumoured to be a potential successor to Rochester as lord president. Following the death of Newcastle in mid July, Somerset and his wife were believed to be urging the queen to support the appointment of a Whig successor.
The Whigs remained at best ambivalent to Somerset; summed up, perhaps, by the verses in the hand of the duchess of Marlborough in mid 1711:
Seymour to whom no mortal can decide
If fool, or knave, more justly be applied.Add. 61479, ff. 14-15.
Somerset remained a presence at court, assiduously attending the queen at Windsor during the summer of 1711, but according to Swift, usually leaving ‘Windsor on Saturday, when the ministers go down thither, and returns not until they are gone’.
On 25 Sept. 1711 Somerset wrote to Oxford (as Harley had since become) thanking him for ‘the particular honour your Lordship did me this morning to communicate affairs of so much consequence’. He had ‘so much reason to be uneasy in my thoughts’, but as Oxford was ‘the only man that can save us from a most dreadful storm that is very near over turning us, my hopes are there fixed, and I do depend entirely on you.’
On 6 Dec. Somerset received the proxy of the 6th earl of Suffolk (the former Bindon). He was present on the opening day of the 1711-12 session, 7 Dec. 1711, attending on 59 days of the session, including the adjournment on 8 July 1712, 55 per cent of the total. He was named to nine committees. More importantly, Somerset had backed the amendment to the address which called for no peace to be made without Spain. On 8 Dec. he was either forecast as a certain opponent of the court in the projected division of this date, or voted in favour of presenting the address containing the No Peace without Spain clause. His name duly appears on Oxford’s list of 10 Dec. as an office-holder who had voted against the ministry in support of the ‘No Peace Without Spain’ motion. As one contemporary noted ‘Somerset has been warm and active against the Court in this struggle’.
On 11 Dec. James Lowther reported that Somerset would ‘forward’ the Whitehaven harbour bill when it reached the Lords, and he was present on the day that the bill was dealt with in the committee of the whole on 23 Feb. 1712.
declared in his opinion he must be against having more Scotch peers brought into the House, but as an expedient and to show how ready he was to comply with her desires, he desired leave to go into the country, and that he would leave his proxy with one that would vote for; and this expedient has been turned upon him as an imposition and a trick, which was not fit to be used towards her, for he knew [the] duke of Hamilton was to have counsel, and when ever counsel is heard proxies are not admitted.
Hence the queen determined to dismiss him, only to be faced with duke’s threat: ‘he would never leave her majesty till she dismissed him, and when ever that was her pleasure, he must have the duchess’. Swift then weighed into the fray with his poem, The Windsor Prophecy, written on 23 December. This virulent attack on the duchess of Somerset backfired, angering the queen, and damaging fatally Swift’s prospects of advancement in the Church.
Another reason for Somerset’s absence was the impending by-election at Midhurst, which was held on 28 Dec. and saw the Whig candidate John Pratt‡, the future lord chief justice, narrowly defeat his Tory opponent, aided no doubt by the block of 18 burgages acquired by Somerset from Henry Browne, 5th Viscount Montagu, in October 1711.
I will submit myself entirely to your judgment and venture the censure of the world upon it, hoping all my friends will support me, by doing it I do hope by acting thus against my own judgment your Lordship will be convinced of the very great respect I pay to yours.
Cowper (Panshanger) mss DE/P/F56, Somerset to Cowper, sat. aft. [26 Jan. 1712].
Somerset having returned to the Lords on 19 Jan. 1712, on 21 Jan. the proxy of Robert Darcy, 3rd earl of Holdernesse, was registered to him. After 29 Feb. he was absent until 17 Mar. registering his proxy with Cowper on 3 March. After attending on 29 Mar., he registered his proxy on 31 Mar. with Holdernesse. Shortly afterwards Somerset went to Newmarket.
Rumours of a meeting between Oxford and some prominent Whigs in March 1713, led to speculation that Somerset would return to office as master of the horse.
Meanwhile, on 18 Apr. Dr Hamilton mentioned ‘a story of the duchess of Somerset’s going between the queen and the duchess of Newcastle, in order to get a match between the duke of Newcastle’s daughter and the duke of Somerset’s son’.
In the 1713 election, Somerset and Wharton appear to have failed to co-ordinate adequately for the election at Cockermouth, and with Stanhope both absent and sure of election elsewhere, he lost to a Tory. On 13 Sept. Somerset informed Stanhope of his failure to secure his return owing to ‘false friends’ who had opted to ensure the return of Nicholas Lechmere†, future Baron Lechmere, by failing to give their second votes to Stanhope. As Weymouth wrote on the 25th, Somerset had dined with him at Longleat the previous week and ‘is much displeased with his steward at Cockermouth, who has betrayed him. Neither is he more satisfied with the usage of Lord Wharton’.
On 31 Dec. ‘all the best front of Petworth … burnt down’, although not Somerset’s own apartments.
On 8 June 1714, Oxford wrote a memorandum for a meeting with the queen, which included the advice ‘send for the duchess of Somerset. Nobody else can save us’, an approach renewed through Somerset at the beginning of July.
By this date Somerset was again engaged in intrigue. Oxford later recalled that at the time of his dismissal, Marlborough was on the point of leaving Flanders to be at the head of the scheme, which had been framed by Bolingbroke, and included Cadogan, Somerset and others. Indeed, on 29 July Swift recorded that Somerset was due to dine ‘with the fraternity at Greenwich’ with Lieutenant-general Henry Withers‡, who resided there, and was linked to both Marlborough and Bolingbroke. Following a meeting with Bothmer, Somerset and Argyll attended a council called after the queen fell ill on 30 July.
Somerset was present on the opening day of the session convened following the queen’s death, 1 Aug. 1714, when he took the oaths. On 5 Aug. he was one of 14 lords justices attending to hear a speech from the lord chancellor. On 13 Aug. he was one of 13 lords justices in attendance for another speech on their behalf from the lord chancellor. He was present when Parliament was prorogued on 25 Aug., having attended on five days of the session, a third of the total, and been named to two committees.
With a new reign, Somerset’s interest began to revive. On 19 Aug. James Lowther was informed that ‘endeavours are used for retrieving’ the duke of Somerset’s interest at Cockermouth.
Somerset died on 2 Dec. 1748, at Petworth. He was buried on 26 Dec. in Salisbury Cathedral, although one almost contemporaneous source reported him being carried from Petworth on the 26th and buried in Salisbury Cathedral on the 28th.
Somerset may have been ridiculed as ‘The Sovereign’ by many of his contemporaries for his aloof manner, but he could not be ignored. His territorial power and associated hold on a number of seats in the Commons made him an important patron for young politicians, like James Stanhope. Hence the duchess of Marlborough looking back to 1704 described him as ‘very unreasonable and troublesome. But I thought him then honest and in the queen’s true interest because of his great stake’. Ailesbury, also in retrospect, was able to allude to a junto of Devonshire, Somerset, Wharton, Sunderland, Townshend, Halifax and Somers. Allied to this was an appetite for power, which was not matched by any administrative ability or political talent. Further, his parliamentary impact was somewhat blunted by what Macky referred to as ‘a great hesitation in his speech’, whereby he ‘wants expression’. However, his political assets, especially in Anne’s reign included his wife, according to Dartmouth, ‘the best bred as well as the best born lady in England’, and whom in May 1708, Queen Anne described, along with Lady Fitzhardinge, as ‘two of the most observing, prying ladies in England’. Undoubtedly, her presence at court during the period 1710-14 gave succour to the Whigs and easy access to the court for her husband. Unfortunately, a more precise assessment of her influence, and how Somerset exploited it, is made more difficult by the destruction of the queen’s letters to her that were ordered to be burnt by the duke after his wife’s death, as were his own papers.