TOWNSHEND, Charles (1675-1738)

The holder of one of the dominant interests in Norfolk, in the course of his career Townshend also succeeded in establishing himself as a commanding figure in national politics. Appraisals of his character varied. John Hervey^†, 2nd Baron Hervey, was typically caustic and dismissed him as lacking in substance and a ‘slave to his passions’. Hervey Mems. ed. R. Sedgwick, i. 80. Philip Dormer Stanhope^‡, 4th earl of Chesterfield, was more generous, but he also noted that it took ‘very long experience and unwearied application’ to turn Townshend into ‘an able man of business’. Rosenheim, Townshends, 198n. It was a standing joke in the House that his oratory was unpolished and often ungrammatical, but Townshend appears consciously to have played up this rough haughtiness and to have taken advantage of being thought a dullard. Hervey Mems. ed. R. Sedgwick, i. 81. It seems clear that he was at times difficult to get on with but, contrary to what Hervey suggested, he was also unusually willing to acknowledge his fallibility. Even his most ardent critics seem to have agreed that he was honest. Rosenheim, Townshends, 159; J.H. Plumb, Sir Robert Walpole, i. 113. A lengthy stint as ambassador at The Hague made him thoroughly pro-Dutch. Townshend struck up early in his career a lasting partnership with his kinsman, Robert Walpole^†, later earl of Orford, who also revelled in his affectedly coarse, rustic demeanour. Between them they were able to command the loyalty of a significant faction in the Commons based on their Norfolk interests, which was to help underpin their ultimate dominance of the reign of George I. Pols. in Age of Anne, 231-4.

Early career to 1697

Townshend succeeded to the peerage underage following the death of his father in the winter of 1687 and was entrusted to the guardianship of Walpole’s father, also Robert Walpole^‡. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 410. An assessment of January 1688 noting Townshend as an opponent of repeal of the Test was presumably more a reflection of the compiler’s understanding of Townshend’s father’s attitude than an accurate appraisal of what the new viscount made of the king’s proposed policies.

At the time of his succession both Townshend and his younger brother, Roger Townshend^‡, were pupils at Eton. There followed a fierce contest between the trustees of the late viscount’s will and other members of the family, who were all eager to secure control of the young peer. Shortly after succeeding he was withdrawn from Eton and housed with his grandmother, Lady Ashe, as part of an effort by his Whig uncle, William Windham (Lady Ashe’s son-in-law) to distance him from his Tory trustees, James Calthorpe and William Thurisby^‡. By July Calthorpe and Thurisby appear to have prevailed and the young man returned to Eton. Windham’s death the following year effectively brought the struggle to a close. Rosenheim, Townshends, 108-9.

There is no evidence to suggest that Townshend participated in the Revolution of 1688. He was noted as underage at a call of the House on 25 Jan. 1689 and again on 22 May and 28 October. In 1691 he quit Eton for King’s College, Cambridge, where he remained (nominally) for the ensuing three years. According to Dean Prideaux he left Cambridge in November 1693 and took up residence in London. Prideaux suspended his judgment on the young man, declaring him to be ‘as rasa tabula; a twelvemonth hence we shall better see whether good or evil is to be written thereon.’ Prideaux Letters, 165. It may have been to this period that Charles Lennox^* , 2nd duke of Richmond, was referring when he wrote to Thomas Pelham Holles, duke of Newcastle, in 1738 seeking Newcastle’s support for a petition to overturn the conviction for buggery of one David Reid. Reid had been convicted on the sole evidence of a 16-year-old, prompting Richmond to remind Newcastle to call to remembrance ‘the judgment Lovel [Sir Salathiel Lovell] pronounced upon the late Lord Townshend upon such an occasion.’ Corr. of the dukes of Richmond and Newcastle, ed. T.J. McCann (Suss. Rec. Soc. lxxiii), 22. If Townshend was indeed caught up in a scandal of this nature there is no evidence to suggest that he was involved subsequently in any similar episodes. Besides, it is not clear what his role was supposed to have been: complainant, defendant or merely witness.

Townshend was granted a pass to travel abroad in July 1694. By the spring of 1696 when he encountered Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, Viscount Galway [I] in Turin, he had progressed in his education and was noted by Galway as an impressive young man, ‘fort sage, et d'une très bonne conduite’ [very wise and well-mannered]. HMC Buccleuch, 323. Despite such accomplishments, Townshend was rejected as a potential suitor for one of the daughters of his uncle, Thomas Crew, 2nd Baron Crew, being still underage and inconveniently out of the country. Rosenheim, Townshends, 117.

The House of Lords, 1697-1702

Having returned to England in the autumn of 1697, Townshend took his seat in the House at the beginning of the third session of the 1695 Parliament on 3 Dec. 1697, after which he was present on just over three quarters of all sitting days. Although he came to be a fairly consistent supporter of the Junto, Townshend’s early career demonstrated a far more independent approach. In his early years in the House he often divided with the Tories, voting for example on 15 Mar. 1698 against committing the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe^‡. Over the next two days he entered dissents against resolutions in favour of the appellants in the cause James Bertie^‡ v. Viscount Falkland.

By the close of June 1698 it was rumoured that Townshend was to marry Elizabeth, the daughter of Thomas Pelham, later Baron Pelham of Laughton and niece of John Holles, duke of Newcastle. Townshend quit the chamber from 28 June for the remaining six days of the session, and on 30 June registered his proxy with the moderate Tory, William Legge, 2nd Baron (later earl of) Dartmouth, which was vacated by the prorogation. Townshend’s marriage with Elizabeth Pelham was solemnized on 3 July. The new Lady Townshend brought with her a fortune believed to be in the region of £30,000, or as Sir Miles Cooke reported it, ‘She weighs 30,000 p[ounds]’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 386, 398; CSP Dom. 1698, p. 330.

Townshend returned to the House for the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698, after which he was present on 68 per cent of all sitting days. On 8 Feb. 1699 he voted against agreeing with the committee’s resolution offering to assist the king to retain his Dutch Guards. He then entered his dissent when it was resolved to support the committee’s recommendation. Aside from that, he appears to have made little impression on the session and over the summer was probably caught up with domestic concerns surrounding the birth of a son and heir. Add. 70121, A. Pelham to Sir E. Harley, 22 Aug. 1699. Having attended the House on two of the intervening prorogation days, Townshend resumed his seat in the second session on 16 Nov. 1699, after which he was present on 92 per cent of all sitting days. In Feb. 1700 he was forecast as being likely to support the bill for continuing the East India Company as a corporation and on 23 Feb. he voted in favour of adjourning into committee of the whole House to discuss amendments to the bill. On 20 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the bill for confirming a lease between Richard Barry and the city of Norwich, a measure in which he presumably had some local interest.

Townshend was marked ‘O’ on a list of Whig lords in July 1700, possibly indicating that he was believed to be a potential supporter of the ministry. In December he set about exerting his interest in Norfolk in an effort to secure one of the county seats for his younger brother, Roger. In a letter to Sir William Cook^‡, 2nd bt, Townshend conceded that he was ‘sensible that it is an honour that neither myself nor any of my family can pretend to deserve’ but hoped that should the choice fall on his brother he would ‘make you the best acknowledgements that are in his power’ and that if he fell short of expectations ‘I will be one of the first who will declare him unworthy to represent this county’. Suff. RO (Ipswich), Gurdon mss mic. M142(1), Townshend to Sir W. Cook, 17 Dec. 1700. Although Roger Townshend was successful in February 1701, Townshend’s second candidate, his kinsman Robert Walpole, was squeezed out following the entry of a third Whig pretender, Charles Paston^‡, styled Lord Paston.

Townshend took his seat in the new Parliament on 1 Apr. 1701. Although he had delayed resuming his seat for almost two months following the opening of the session on 8 Feb., he still attended over half of all sitting days. At this point Townshend may have been more engrossed in local matters. The death on 2 Apr. of the lord lieutenant, Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, whose heir was a Catholic and thus ineligible to succeed to the position, created a vacancy in the government of the county. This precipitated concerns that the post might go to a ‘foreigner’, Edward Russell, earl of Orford, one of the Junto peers under threat of impeachment in that Parliament. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 120. The previous year, Dean Prideaux had assessed Townshend as ‘so obvious’ a choice as lord lieutenant that the court could not but appoint him on Norfolk’s death, ‘for nothing else can be acceptable to the county, or in truth do the king any service in it’. Prideaux Letters, 195. Still his appointment was not formally announced until early May, and in the meantime the corporation of King’s Lynn chose him as their high steward for life. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 129, 135. With his growing interest in Norfolk, Townshend also seems to have been eager to make his mark in Parliament. On 16 Apr. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to appoint a committee to draw an address to the king requesting that the impeached Whig lords not be punished until they had been tried; he also subscribed the subsequent protest on the same day when the House ordered the reasons for that protest to be expurgated from the journal. On 15 May the Member for King’s Lynn, Sir Charles Turner^‡, expressed his pleasure that Townshend had ‘broken the ice in the peers’ house'. Turner continued emphasizing ‘It would be pity that so clear a light should not be made as conspicuous as it is possible’. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 142. The occasion has often been assumed to have been Townshend’s maiden speech. Although it is not clear precisely which debate first brought him to his feet it seems possible that it was in response to the reading on 14 May of Orford’s answers to the articles of impeachment against him. On 26 May Townshend wrote to Walpole relating information about possible Speakers for the Commons in the next Parliament. On 10 June he reported from committee the unamended bill for erecting workhouses and hospitals in King’s Lynn, a further sign of his burgeoning local interest. CUL, Ch(H) Corr. 146. Although he was marked as present in the journal’s attendance register for 17 June, he is not included in the list of peers giving their verdicts that day at the trial of John Somers, Baron Somers, in Westminster Hall.

Further efforts to develop his interest in Norfolk were made apparent when Townshend was feted by the town of Great Yarmouth in August 1701. He was treated to an entertainment in his honour and elected an honorary freeman of the borough. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 416. The event proved the beginning of a long but by no means straightforward relationship as Townshend attempted to secure his interest in an otherwise fiercely independent town. Gauci, Great Yarmouth, 206. At the second election of the year, his brother Roger was again returned for Norfolk in company with Sir John Holland^‡, 2nd bt. In this case, Townshend’s local popularity and his reputation for moderation seems to have helped attract some of the Tory voters away from their candidate, Sir Jacob Astley^‡, bt. As a further sign of his good standing in the county, Townshend was asked to present to the king both the county and borough addresses on Louis XIV’s recognition of the Pretender. Norf. RO, HOW 730/1, R. Walpole to Lady Diana Howard, 17 Nov. 1701. In spite of his recent successes, however, Townshend’s Walpole kinsmen seemed fretful about his apparent lack of interest at court. This followed his failure to get his way over nominations to the shrievalty and inability to secure the election of any of his candidates in the Norfolk borough seats. They also expressed broader concerns about the divisions between his ‘neighbours and relations’. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 184.

Townshend took his seat in the new Parliament on 30 December. Assiduous in his attendance during the session, he was present on 94 per cent of all sitting days and, as a further indication of his growing reputation beyond the confines of Norfolk, in early February 1702 it was reported that he either had been or was on the point of being made lord privy seal. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 173. The chance of promotion, though, was scotched by the unexpected death of William III in March. Unrestricted by the burden of court office, Townshend concentrated on matters within the House. Reputed to have been a considerate husband to his own wife, Townshend expressed himself disgusted at the behaviour of James Annesley, 3rd earl of Anglesey, ‘a very barbarous fellow’, whose marital difficulties were the subject of the House’s interest in late March. HMC Dartmouth, i. 293. On 15 May Townshend took the chair in the committee of the whole considering the bill for importation of Sicilian thrown silk.

The Reign of Queen Anne to 1708

The accession of Queen Anne seems to have made little immediate difference to Townshend’s career: he was able to retain his place as lord lieutenant in Norfolk. The elections for the new Parliament revealed continuing tensions within Norfolk, though, and in particular between the various Whig factions dating from the previous contest. An attempt to force Holland to stand down misfired and the election resulted in the return of Holland along with the Tory Astley following Roger Townshend’s decision not to contest his seat. Norf. Arch. xxxvii. 321. With his local interest damaged, Townshend returned to the House at the beginning of the new Parliament on 20 Oct. 1702. Early in 1703 he was estimated as a likely opponent of the occasional conformity bill. He was nominated a manager for conferences on the Lords’ amendments to it on 17 Dec. 1702 and 9 Jan. 1703. On 16 Jan. 1703 he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the penalty clause. Prior to this, he spoke in the House on 9 Jan., in response to the queen’s address, about the request made by the Dutch for assistance, in which he concurred with the motion proposed by Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington, but also made some further suggestions of his own. On 19 Jan. during a committee of the whole considering the bill for Prince George, duke of Cumberland, he joined with those opposing the clause granting him license, as a foreigner, to continue sitting in the House after the queen’s death. He criticized it as a tack of extraneous material on a money bill, though he insisted on his respect for the prince. He was then one of those to sign the subsequent protest against the House’s decision to retain the clause in the bill. Nicolson, London Diaries, 177, 181. The following day, he reported from the committee for the Great Yarmouth bill. Townshend was noteworthy on 22 Jan. as the only Whig to join in the protest against the resolution to dismiss the petition of Robert Squire^‡ and others in their appeal against Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, concerning the ownership of valuable lead mines in Swaledale in north Yorkshire. He also continued to be active as a committee chairman during the remainder of the session, and on 26 Jan. he reported from the committees considering James Hoare's bill and the bill for the sale of part of Charles Morris’s estate, and on 9 Feb. from that for the bill for improving the collection of tolls from Chancery Lane into Lincoln’s Inn Fields. On 22 Feb. he also subscribed the protest against the failure to commit the bill to establish landed qualification for Members, a stance that appeared once again to align him more with the Tories than with the Whigs.

In advance of the new session that autumn of 1703, Townshend was one of a number of Walpole’s friends to express their concern at the future premier’s apparent disinclination to return to London for the opening. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 317. In early November Townshend was forecast by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as a likely opponent of the occasional conformity bill, an estimate that Sunderland was confident of later towards the end of the month. Townshend took his seat in the House on 26 Nov. and was thereafter present on just over 70 per cent of all sitting days. On 14 Dec., as predicted, he voted against the occasional conformity bill. Townshend was present at a meeting on 17 Dec. held at Sunderland’s London home, which may have been convened to discuss the tactics surrounding the ‘Scotch Plot’. TNA, C 104/116 pt. 1 (Ossulston’s Diary), 17 Dec. 1703. As a result of a ballot held the following day Townshend was appointed one of the seven peers assigned to examine Boucher, and others concerning the plot. He joined Somers, Sunderland, Wharton, and Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, in requesting not to be required to act on this committee, but their excuses were dismissed and, two days later, the committee convened to examine Boucher and other prisoners. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 371; HMC Lords, n.s. v. 300-1; Add. 70075, newsletter, 21 Dec. 1703.

Townshend was again present at a gathering hosted by Sunderland early on 13 Feb. 1704 where ‘our discourse was only about the Scotch Plot’. C 104/116, pt. 1 (Ossulston’s Diary), 13 Feb. 1704. Two days later Townshend was ordered to attend the queen with the address concerning the Scots conspiracy. He was again one of seven peers nominated on 22 Feb. to a committee to make further enquiries into it. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 394; Beinecke Lib. OSB Mss 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 26 Feb. 1704. On 21 Mar, he entered his dissent from the rejection of a rider to the recruits bill which would require the consent of the local churchwardens and overseers of the poor before conscription. Townshend also became involved in the business relating to the controversial Aylesbury election of 1701 and on 27 Mar. he reported from the committee appointed to draw up the state of the case concerning the writ of error in Ashby v. White. He was also appointed one of the managers of the conference held that same day on the public accounts bill.

Townshend was absent from the opening of the ensuing session of 1704-5. He was probably engaged with business on his estates as he wrote to Walpole from Rainham on 27 Oct. 1704, the second business day of the session, admitting that he ‘was very impatient to hear what was done upon your first meeting’. He begged Walpole that he might ‘hear from you for though I am extremely fond of the country yet I cannot keep my thoughts entirely from Westminster’. On 6 Nov. he wrote again in response to news that three of his ‘particular friends’ had been named in the list for sheriffs. Two days later he wrote again with further thoughts about keeping some of his Norfolk allies from being pricked. A third letter of 20 Nov. harped on the same subject: ‘you know my engagements to Sir Edward Ward and if he or Ashe Windham^‡ be sheriff I shall make but a very indifferent figure in these parts.’ CUL, Ch(H) Corr. 364, 370, 372, 377. Townshend was excused at a call on 23 Nov. and it was not until 16 Dec. that he finally took his seat, after which he was present on just over 56 per cent of all days in the session. On 21 Dec. he seconded the motion made by Francis North, 2nd Baron Guilford, that the unsightly, half-finished galleries obscuring the light in the Lords chamber be pulled down. Nicolson, London Diaries, 257.

Townshend was a manager of the conference regarding the case of the Aylesbury men on 28 Feb. 1705, and on 1 Mar. he was also one of a committee of a dozen lords appointed to draw up reasons why the Lords disagreed with one of the clauses in the Jacob Pechels naturalization bill, to be presented to the Commons at a conference. Six days later he was again named a reporter for a conference on the Aylesbury men and was later placed on the committee assigned to draw up the state of proceedings in the cause. Townshend was entrusted with the proxies of William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, and of Evelyn Pierrepont, 5th earl (later duke) of Kingston, on 12 March. That same day he was named one of the managers of the conference considering the amendments to the militia bill. The following day he was also named one of the managers of a conference concerning the Pechels naturalization bill.

Townshend appears early on to have been considered for a diplomatic posting, though he may have been reluctant to take on the role. A letter of 16 Mar. 1705 from Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, noted that Townshend would not agree to be sent to Vienna. HMC Portland, ii. 189. Townshend, second choice for the posting after William Paget, 2nd Baron Paget, indeed refused the offer of the mission to Vienna in April. That month he was assessed, unsurprisingly, as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 415n. The elections of May saw Townshend’s brother, Roger, returned for the Norfolk county seat once more with Sir John Holland, the two men having been reunited after their previous misunderstandings. Townshend had been active as early as February that year in mobilizing his interest but in the event no other candidates emerged to challenge the two Whigs. Raynham Hall, Townshend mss, pprs re estate management c.1705-20s, Townshend to T. Ward, 15 Feb. 1705; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 411. Over the summer, he became embroiled in a bitter contest waged in Norwich between the then mayor and a number of the city’s freemen. Writing to his uncle Newcastle, Townshend warned in apocalyptic terms of the problems caused by the mayor’s ‘very arbitrary and illegal manner’ and how ‘all the mayor’s actions have been attended with so much partiality and so much violence in order to support his party that there will be an end of government in Norwich, if he escape without punishment.’ HMC Portland, iv. 199-200. Despite this, the mayor continued to exert a powerful interest and a petition of the freemen of Norwich, backed by Townshend, failed to secure their aims. Townshend professed himself astounded at the petition being ‘baffled in such a manner’ and concerned that having already ‘brought the malice of the mayor and his party upon me’ he would now be the subject of their scorn as well. In spite of his lack of success in the business of Norwich, Townshend continued to press his interest and in July he wrote to his cousin Walpole on behalf of one Drury who was eager to secure a place in Walpole’s office. Acknowledging that he knew little of Drury and therefore was unable to ‘be very earnest in my recommendation’ Townshend still hoped that Walpole would give the man a hearing and be sure to let Drury know that Townshend had mentioned him. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 422, 423.

In advance of the meeting of the new Parliament, Townshend, on 8 Oct. 1705, expressed his satisfaction to Walpole at the news that the lord keeper, Nathan Wright^‡, had been put out, which he considered ‘the best step the court has yet made’. He wrote again shortly afterwards seeking his cousin’s assistance in seeing to it that neither Ward nor Windham were pricked as sheriffs and suggesting two alternative candidates for the unpopular position. He wrote again about the same matter later in the month, on 22 Oct., emphasizing the ‘very ill consequence if any one of our friends be put upon that office’. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 436, 441, 443. Townshend himself was, not surprisingly, absent at the opening of the new Parliament on 25 October. Excused at a call on 12 Nov. Townshend was listed in a visiting book of 26 Nov. as being resident at a house in Bond Street, but it was still not until 4 Dec. that he finally took his seat in the session, after which he was present on 68 per cent of all sitting days. Once in attendance, Townshend proved himself to be an energetic member of several committees. On 6 Dec. he voted in favour of the Whig motion that the ‘Church was not in danger under the queen’s administration’. Between 7 and 17 Dec. he took part in four conferences between the houses on this resolution. WSHC, 3790/1/1, p. 60; PH, xxxii. 261. On 26 Jan. 1706 he reported from that considering Holworthy’s bill. On 7, 11 and 19 Feb. he further acted as a manger in conferences on the ‘whimsical’ place clause to the regency bill. On 23 Feb. he joined with the high Tory peers Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, and Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, in voting in favour of delaying reading the archbishop of Dublin’s bill until the following Monday (25 Feb.) rather than proceeding with reading the bill at once. On 6 Mar. he reported from the committee for John Abington’s bill, which was recommended to the House as fit to pass and on 9 Mar. he was nominated to the committees for drawing up two addresses, one of them concerning the oppressions under which the province of Carolina was said to labour. He reported on 14 Mar. from the committee considering the petition of the inhabitants of south Lancashire concerning the threat to the area from disgruntled Papists. Townshend’s involvement with the House’s business was not terminated by the close of the session. On 18 July and again on 24 July he was one of the members of the committee for the Journal to sign off the record of proceedings for 31 Jan. and for 6 March. He continued to be an active member of the committee over the ensuing years.

In April 1706 Townshend was chosen one of the commissioners for the Union negotiations, and was present at a meeting on 12 June concerning the size of the Scottish representation in Parliament. However the Scottish observer John Clerk of Penicuik considered that neither Townshend, nor any of the other ‘great speakers’ on the English side said anything worthy of note on this matter. Lockhart Mems. 118; NRS, GD 18/3132, pp. 77-79. In late September Townshend attempted to employ his interest once more, writing to Walpole at the instance of Sir Charles Turner to recommend one Baron for a clerical living at Ellingham. Townshend reckoned Baron to be ‘a very honest man’ and that he would prove to be ‘of very great service to our interest in that part of the country’. He would also be a distinct improvement on the previous incumbent, a notorious Jacobite named Crisp. Townshend stayed with Turner in early October in preparation for a journey to Great Yarmouth. By 14 Oct. Townshend was back at his own seat of Raynham, whence he wrote to Walpole again to inform him of the proceedings at the Norwich sessions and to ask once more that Walpole should ensure that their friends were not encumbered with being appointed to the ‘troublesome office’ of sheriff. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 534, 535, 538, 540.

Having attended two of the prorogation days on 21 May and 21 Nov. 1706, Townshend took his seat in the House at the opening of the new session on 3 Dec. 1706, after which he was present on 78 per cent of all sitting days. He was named to the committee appointed that day for drawing an address to congratulate the queen on the recent Allied victories, while on 14 Dec. he was named to the committee appointed to draw an address for leave to bring in a bill for settling the continuance of the titles of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, in the event of the duke dying without direct male heirs. Townshend continued to play an active part in the House’s business as a chairman of committees, particularly those with a local flavour. Thus on 13 and 27 Jan. 1707 he presented the House with the findings of two committees considering bills for making captured vessels free ships and on 5 Feb. he reported from the committee for the bill for regulating duties on the importation of coal into Great Yarmouth. The following day, he was one of a number of peers to gather at the home of Somerset, where ‘there was a good deal of company’, including Somers and Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax. C104/116, pt. 1 (Ossulston’s Diary), 6 Feb. 1706. In the last days of January he was also involved with Sunderland in considering ‘measures concerted for the passing’ of the Union bill and the insertion into it of an act for securing the Church of England, the details of which were discussed by a small group of lords including Marlborough, Wharton, Orford and Halifax. LPL, Ms. 1770 (Wake’s Diary) f. 35.

His growing reputation beyond the confines of Parliament was also underscored by rumours in March 1707 that he was again being considered for a foreign posting, which provoked the furious indignation of Halifax, who considered himself the next in line for a diplomatic mission. Add. 61458, ff. 174-6. Townshend failed to attend the brief session of 14-24 Apr. 1707. At the commencement of the following session of 1707-8, the first of the new Parliament of Great Britain, Townshend was once again concerned about local matters, particularly the selection of sheriffs for Norfolk. He also expressed himself worried, in a letter to Walpole of 6 Nov., by reports of divisions among the Whigs and of the prospect of ‘a troublesome sessions’. Such concerns, though, failed to rouse him to leave Norfolk in time for the start of the session on 23 Oct. 1707, and he insouciantly informed Walpole that ‘the House of Lords I suppose will have little to do and I am very busy in altering my gardens and do not intend to be in town till the beginning of next month’. CUL, Ch(H), Corr. 582. He was in the capital by 14 Nov. when he kissed the queen's hand to take up his new position as captain of the yeomen of the guard. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 235; Verney ms mic. M636/53, J. Verney, Viscount Fermanagh [I], to Sir T. Cave, 18 Nov. 1707. Townshend’s appointment to this household post had been secured in the face of strong support for one of the previous holders, Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester, to be restored to the place. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 887.

Three days later Townshend took his seat in the chamber on 17 Nov. 1707 and in total attended 83 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 20 Nov., he was also sworn to the Privy Council. Add. 70284, Godolphin to R. Harley, 19 Nov. 1707. He was nominated on 18 Dec. to the committee to draw an address of thanks to the queen for her speech. On 7 Jan. 1708 Townshend reported from the committee considering the the impact on recruitment of sailors for the Navy arising from a recent act relating to the coal trade. He was ordered to bring in a bill to address the matter and on 15 Jan. he introduced the bill for encouraging seamen and better manning of the fleet. Townshend’s increasing profile in the House was reflected in his election on 9 Feb., by ballot, as one of the seven Whig peers assigned to examine William Gregg. At the same time, he distinguished himself from many of his Junto colleagues on this committee in joining the ministry in opposing the bill that would abolish the Scottish Privy Council. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss, fc 37, vol. 13, no. xix, J. Addison to Manchester, 7 Feb. 1708; HMC Lords, n.s. vii. 548; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 266. On 19 Feb. he joined Halifax and Somers in arguing in favour of the cathedrals bill in a debate in committee of the whole House. Nicolson, London Diaries, 454. Townshend reported from committee on the estate bill for Henry Howard, earl of Bindon (later 6th earl of Suffolk), on 19 Mar., and, ten days later, from the committee for an address requesting a statement of the debts owing to officers from the time of William III. On 31 Mar. he was named a manager of the conference considering the amendments to the bill for encouraging trade to America. Townshend was again active on the Journals committee, signing off in early April 1708 the record of proceedings for 15 and 23 Dec. 1707 and also for 7 Feb. 1708.

The Parliament of 1708 and The Hague

In May, shortly after the dissolution of 15 Apr., Townshend was noted as a Whig in a list of party classifications for the first Parliament of Great Britain. The elections that month confirmed the extent of Townshend’s interest within Norfolk and saw him successfully promoting the claims of his brother, Roger, at Great Yarmouth, and of his kinsman, Ashe Windham^‡, for the county seat in partnership with Holland. He also had the considerable pleasure of seeing his candidates, Waller Bacon^‡ and John Chambers^‡ secure both seats in the notoriously difficult town of Norwich and then of holding onto them in spite of Tory efforts to overturn the result on petition. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 409, 411, 416, 421. The elections in Norfolk confirmed Townshend’s dominance in the county, prompting Prideaux to remark how he:

flourishes among us, for the whole county is absolutely at his beck and he has got such an ascendant here over everybody by his courteous carriage that he may do anything among us what he will and that not only in the country but also in all the corporations, except at Thetford where all is sold… Prideaux Letters, 200.

At the beginning of June Townshend was even approached by James Graham, duke of Montrose [S], with a request to ensure that his Norfolk neighbour, William Richardson, 4th Lord Cramond [S], place his votes, either in person, or by proxy, for the Squadrone slate of candidates in the forthcoming elections for Scottish representative peers. Add. 61628, ff. 135-9. Townshend continued to undertake the careful cultivation of his Norfolk neighbours throughout that year. He lodged with Charles Trimnell, the new bishop of Norwich, at the end of July while he was in attendance at the Norwich assizes and took advantage of the bishop’s hospitality again in London when he returned to the capital in early November. Surr. Hist. Cent., 371/14/E27; LPL, Ms. 1770 (Wake's Diary) f. 68. Townshend also employed his interest that summer on behalf of his brother, Roger, who was eager to maintain his commission in the army but was unwilling to be sent to Portugal with the rest of his regiment. Townshend interceded with Marlborough via the lord treasurer Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin, to ensure that his brother was not sent into ‘that awful country’ which he was convinced ‘would kill him’. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1078.

In the session of 1707-8 Townshend, with his kinsmen and friends Walpole, Newcastle and William Cavendish, 2nd duke of Devonshire, had distinguished themselves as ‘lord treasurer’s Whigs’, those who had not countenanced or joined in with the disruptive tactics of the Junto in their bid to force their way into office. The Junto had, however, tried to bring them round and by October 1708 it was reported that, unlike the previous session, this time ‘the duke of Devonshire and Lord Townshend have given them [the Junto] fresh assurances that they will not divide from them’. It meant ‘a very ill prospect’ for the duumvirs’ government in the coming Parliament. Add. 61459, ff. 118-20; Pols. in Age of Anne, 234-5, 242. One member of the Junto with whom Townshend continued to have a fractious relation was Halifax, as in December 1708 there were further promises to Townshend that he would be appointed to a diplomatic posting which Halifax was also eager to secure for himself. Shortly before Christmas 1708 a clearly exasperated Godolphin queried why both men could not be gainfully employed. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1180, 1184. Townshend took his place in the House for the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708 after which he was present on 90 per cent of all sitting days. Townshend was present at a large gathering of English Junto lords and Scots Squadrone members at Devonshire’s London home on 11 December, where tactics and plans for concerted action between the two groups were undoubtedly discussed. NLS, Yester mss 14415, ff. 168-9. Thus on 21 Jan. 1709 Townshend and the Junto-Squadrone alliance voted against permitting Scots peers holding British titles (including Godolphin’s ally James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry) from voting in the elections for Scots representative peers. Marlborough at about this time singled out Somers, Devonshire, Townshend and Newcastle as those formerly moderate Whig peers he hoped would still be ‘reasonable’, and he thought that Walpole could be of use in keeping Devonshire and Townshend ‘in good humour’. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1207-8, 1217-18. In the last days of January Townshend was present in the House when the Commons’ address requesting the queen to remarry was presented. The address was greeted with silence before Townshend rose to his feet to move the Lords’ concurrence, and was seconded by Somers. Add. 61129, f. 19. The following months saw Townshend active once again as a chairman of committees. On 10 Feb. he reported from the committee for the Whitby piers bill. On 14 Mar. he reported from the select committee on the Wymondham Road bill and eight days later from that for the Pacey sureties bill. Between these he reported on 16 Mar. from the committee of the whole considering the bill confirming patrons’ rights to advowsons. On 14 Apr. he seconded Halifax in proposing an amendment to the bill to extend the English law on treason to Scotland, whereby clauses to the bill added by the Commons would not take effect until after the death of the Pretender. NLS, Yester mss 7021, f. 171. A week later Townshend was nominated a manager of a conference concerning the bill to make perpetual a number of acts concerning the coinage.

The prorogation of 21 Apr. 1709 coincided with reports that Townshend had at last been offered a foreign posting and that he was to travel to Holland with Marlborough to take up his place at The Hague, much to the consternation of Halifax, who felt he had been promised the place by both Somers and Godolphin. Add. 61134, f. 193; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs, 45, f. 370. Speculation circulated concerning the identities of the plenipotentiaries that were to go with him, with at least one commentator reporting that Townshend was to be joined by Newcastle and Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury. NLS, Yester mss 7021, f. 175. While Marlborough and Townshend waited for a favourable wind, Townshend’s potential colleagues busily ruled themselves out. By the beginning of May 1709 Newcastle, Shrewsbury and Devonshire had all refused to go as plenipotentiaries. Halifax seems to have put a similar story about, though some thought he was trying to save face having been turned down by the court. Add. 72488, ff. 62-63; Add. 72450, f. 161. The disinclination of more senior figures to join with Townshend meant that the burden of the negotiations fell on him.

Townshend finally arrived at The Hague on 17 May 1709. He remained there as ambassador for the next two years. Daily Courant, 12 May 1709. By the end of the month he had secured a house for 13,000 Guilders for the first six months, having apparently declined an offer of lodging with Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland. Leics. RO, DG7, box 4950, bdle 23, letter D8; Daily Courant, 21 May 1709. His prime consideration as ambassador was to ensure the continued support of the Dutch for the allied war effort. In this he was eventually successful by dint of his negotiation of the Barrier Treaty, by which Britain pledged itself to permit Dutch trade in the Spanish Empire and to grant the United Provinces a number of fortified towns in the Spanish Netherlands in return for the United Provinces’ continuing commitment to the war and to the Protestant succession in Britain. It was a scheme that both Townshend, Somers and Sunderland were said to favour but which was ultimately to prove a source of serious dissension at home and to bring Townshend to the brink of impeachment. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1314-15.

Townshend’s early months in Holland appear to have been both frustrating and upsetting. Soon after his arrival he was informed of the death of his brother Roger. Efforts to oversee the resulting by-election from a distance at once ran into difficulties when Townshend misinterpreted a letter from Samuel Fuller^‡, thereby adding to the fracturing within the town’s Whig ranks. Disaster was eventually averted when a compromise candidate, Nathaniel Symonds^‡ was elected, but it was an early indication of the difficulties Townshend was to face in maintaining his interest while out of the country. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 416. Meanwhile, business at The Hague was moving very slowly; in mid-September 1709 Marlborough was reported to have assured his young colleague that although he was not much employed at the present, ‘in a short time he would have as much business as he could turn his head to, innuendo, Peace.’ Verney ms mic. M636/54, R. Palmer to R. Verney, 20 Sept. 1709. Townshend’s frustration was not just the result of ennui. As the months passed his relationship with Marlborough deteriorated as the two men came to disagree profoundly about the drafting of the treaty. Although at the close of May 1709 Marlborough had expressed himself ‘very well pleased’ with his junior partner, by August it was apparent that their appraisal of the situation was starkly at odds. Marlborough warned Godolphin that he would find ‘the advice given by [Townshend] prove very fatal to the interest’ of England. Later that month, Marlborough sought permission not to sign the Barrier Treaty as he considered that it might ‘meet with such accidents as may prove very troublesome to all those that have given the advice’. Godolphin, on the other hand, seemed disposed to accept that Townshend’s view had some merit. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1269, 1314-15, 1334, 1336, 1337-8, 1341, 1350, 1375. Despite their disagreements over the shape of the treaty, Townshend was quick to congratulate Marlborough in September following his ‘great victory’ (as he described it elsewhere) at Malplaquet. He hailed the battle, which others condemned as no more than pyrrhic, as ‘the greatest action that has been done this war, when it is fairly considered in all its circumstances’. Surr. Hist. Cent. 371/14/K/26; Pols. in Age of Anne, 77n.

The Barrier Treaty was signed on 29 Oct. 1709, but Townshend remained behind in post to finalize the negotiations and was thus absent from the opening of the 1709-10 session. HMC Portland, ii. 209. Towards the end of November he wrote to Marlborough expressing his satisfaction that Parliament had begun so well and not doubting ‘that they will proceed with the same zeal through the whole session’. Add. 61148, f. 176. If Townshend was indeed in the House on 16 Dec. 1709, as is suggested by the Journal’s attendance register, he had returned to his posting by the middle of January 1710 when he wrote to Marlborough again, insisting that it would ‘be extremely for the public service if your grace would come over as soon as possibly the affairs in England will give you leave.’ Ibid. f. 183. Concern at moves against Marlborough in England may have encouraged Townshend to return to England and resume his place in the House on 8 Feb., as his name appears in the attendance register for that day. On 31 Jan. he had written to the duke to express ‘the greatest consternation imaginable’ at Marlborough's travails and his threat to resign, but if he did indeed attend in early February, his visit was extremely brief and on 10 Feb. the secretary of state Henry Boyle, later Baron Carleton, wrote to him to inform him that Parliament had finally settled the question of supply. The tenor of the letter suggested that Townshend had once more quit the country and appears to question whether he had in fact been present in England a mere two days earlier. Ibid. f. 198; TNA, SP 104/77, f. 12; Add. 72494, f. 155. By the time of the Sacheverell trial at the end of March, Townshend was once more noted as being resident abroad and was again dependent on Boyle to keep him informed of the progress of events. SP 104/77, ff. 22-23.

The aftermath of the Sacheverell trial appears to have convinced Townshend of the need for caution and by the end of April 1710, he was busily engaged in attempting to persuade his Whig colleagues that (as Godolphin reported it) they should ‘bear with patience a great many things in themselves not fit to be borne’ rather than risk losing the benefits of Marlborough’s military gains.. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1479. Townshend’s advice to the Whigs failed to avert the gradual dismemberment of the ministry over the coming months. In June he pleaded with Marlborough not to consider resigning his post, anxious that ‘should you retire we shall inevitably run into confusion and all our misfortunes will be laid to your charge.’ Add. 61148, ff. 206-7. His anxieties were no doubt heightened by news of the dismissal of Sunderland. He was unlikely to have been reassured by the dispatch containing the information, although it emphasized that the queen had not determined to rid herself of her former secretary ‘out of the least unkindness towards the duke of Marlborough’, that she had no intention of making wholesale alterations in the ministry, and that she intended ‘to continue in conjunction with her allies to prosecute the war against the common enemy with same vigour she has hitherto done’. Add. 61130, ff. 87-90; SP 104/77, f. 47.

The advent of the new ministry headed by Robert Harley and Shrewsbury ostensibly made no immediate impact on Townshend's standing at The Hague, though in July 1710 it was speculated that he would be joined there either by Halifax or by Rochester. The suggestion that Rochester might be one of the new envoys was said to be on account of him being ‘well with Hanover’ and that he would help to keep both Townshend and Marlborough ‘in awe’. Add. 61141, ff. 78-85; NLS, Yester mss 7021, f. 225. In the event Townshend retained his post without any additional colleagues being foisted on him, even though it had been insinuated in June that he was opposed to peace and in September it was queried whether or not he and Walpole were not rather ‘down in the mouth’ about the recent removals. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1549; Add. 70278, ? to [John Drummond], 16 Sept. 1710. Their collective misery cannot have been alleviated by the Whigs’ poor showing in the Norfolk election that autumn. Both Walpole and Ashe Windham were unsuccessful in the face of a resurgent Tory interest. They had been hampered by Townshend’s absence overseas, even though he did ‘all that he can for the support of our friends in Norfolk by writing’. HP Commons,1690-1715, ii. 411.

The Parliaments of 1710 and 1713

The extent of the alterations in the administration clearly took Townshend by surprise. In the middle of August 1710 he complained of his adversaries’ demeanour and of the ‘violence and madness that their guilt can suggest to them as necessary to protect them in their villainous designs’. Despite this he continued to profess himself to be patient in the face of the uncertain state of affairs and seems to have been determined to work with the new regime. Add. 61148, f. 208. In contrast with the earlier report that he was opposed to peace, Townshend was assessed by John Drummond as being eager to secure peace ‘as soon as it can be obtained with reason and safety’, an attitude that chimed positively with the policy of the new administration. Likewise, Drummond’s belief that although Townshend may have been ‘in with some of the Junto, he has always spoken honourably of the queen’s ministers now employed’ no doubt further helped him to retain his post long after a number of his Whig confrères had been replaced. HMC Portland, iv. 604. Townshend’s good relations with the Dutch, the result of ‘his plain and honest methods of dealing with them’ may also have been a factor. Nevertheless, this accommodating attitude on both sides did not last long, and at the beginning of November rumours were circulating that Townshend would soon be recalled. He was, it was feared, ‘too much a creature of Lord Somers as well as of another great lord’ (probably Marlborough). Wentworth Pprs. 154. In mid-December, it was thought that he would be replaced by Henry St John, later Viscount Bolingbroke, though for the time being he clung onto his position. Add. 72500, ff. 45-46.

By the close of February 1711, a combination of Townshend’s closeness to the Junto and the needs of the new administration to offer places to its supporters finally settled the question and Townshend was presented with his letters of recall. HMC Townshend, 80. His replacement proved not to be St John but Thomas Wentworth, 2nd Baron Raby (later earl of Strafford). One paper explained Townshend’s relinquishing of his place as owing to his own request to return home. Post Man, 8-10 Mar. 1711. Drummond warned Harley that Raby would be hard pressed to emulate Townshend’s popularity in Holland. This assessment was echoed in the Daily Courant, which reported that Townshend ‘leaves behind him a great reputation for acquitting himself of his employment with no less ability than candour and probity, and carrying himself towards all with extraordinary affability’. HMC Portland, iv. 663; Daily Courant, 2 Apr. 1711. Raby, on the other hand, later complained that Townshend had been less than helpful during the handover. Add. 61141, ff. 131-8; Add. 70286, Raby to H. St John, 1 May 1711. Contrary winds delayed Townshend’s departure until April. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1661. On 16 Apr. 1711, four days after landing back in England, he took his seat in the House for the first time in almost two years, after which he attended on a further two days before absenting himself for almost two weeks. Wentworth Pprs, 193; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, f. 205. On 2 May he registered his proxy with Somers, which most probably took effect from the following day, 3 May, Townshend’s last day in the House in that session.

Harley’s efforts to rebalance the ministry in favour of a more mixed administration gave rise to reports towards the end of April 1711 that Townshend might replace Dartmouth as secretary of state with Somers also returning to office as lord president. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 5, f. 192. The rumours persisted into the middle of May but in the event neither appointment materialized. Far from being offered additional employment, in mid-June Townshend was stripped of his position as captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, which went to Henry Paget, later earl of Uxbridge. Add. 72495, f. 74; Add. 28041, f. 29. By then it was believed that Marlborough was so annoyed by Townshend’s decision to sign the Barrier Treaty that he would never forgive the young diplomat. HMC Portland, iv. 690. Townshend’s personal concerns more than overshadowed such political developments as the late spring and early summer saw him lose in quick succession his wife, a new-born daughter, and his heir, Horatio. Add. 70147, Lady Dupplin to A. Harley, 19 May 1711.

By the winter of 1711 the possibility of Townshend being recruited by the ministry had all but evaporated. He sat on the new session’s first day, 7 Dec. 1711, and attended just over 70 per cent of its sitting days. On that first day he voted in favour of including a clause in the Address asserting that there could be ‘No Peace without Spain’. Certainly he was included in a list compiled by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, which possibly relates to the negotiations between him and the Whigs for a prospective anti-ministry alliance. Townshend also featured among the opponents of the court in an assessment by Oxford (as Robert Harley had become in May 1711) concerning his attempt on 8 Dec. to undo the vote in favour of the clause. Lastly, Oxford also noted Townshend among those office-holders (even though at that point he did not hold office) that rebelled against the ministry over the Address. Townshend was later forecast by Oxford as one of those opposed to the claim of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the House as the British duke of Brandon, and at the division on 20 Dec. Townshend voted as expected in favour of barring Scots peers holding post-Union British titles from sitting in the Lords.

On 18 Jan. 1712 Townshend received the proxy of Charles Howard, 4th Baron Howard of Escrick, which was vacated the following day by Howard’s appearance. Howard’s proxy was replaced that same day by that of Thomas Fane, 6th earl of Westmorland, which Townshend held for the session. Townshend’s poor standing with the government was reflected in rumours in January that he was to be impeached, along with Marlborough, Godolphin and Wharton, for his role in negotiating the Barrier Treaty. NRS, GD 248/572/1/10. One commentator noted the Commons’ proceedings on the matter as ‘a very sore place’, and punned regarding the barrier that he did not know ‘how my Lord Townshend will get over’. Add. 22220, ff. 7-8. On 14 Feb. Townshend was formally censured by the Commons, and dubbed an enemy of the queen and country, for exceeding his instructions by allowing the Dutch to demand, and to receive, more than had been initially allowed. Wentworth Pprs. 266-7. Some thought that the affair revealed the extent to which Townshend had been made a fool of by the Junto and left him with a sadly diminished reputation. Add. 72495, f. 127.

Townshend was absent from the House from 23 Feb. 1712 and on 26 Feb. he registered his proxy with Halifax, which was vacated by Townshend’s resumption of his seat two days later. On 31 Mar. he received Devonshire’s proxy, which he held until the duke’s return on 12 April. This in turn was replaced by the proxy of Scroop Egerton, 4th earl (later duke) of Bridgwater, registered with Townshend the day Devonshire’s was vacated. Still holding Bridgwater’s proxy, Townshend then entrusted his own proxy with Devonshire on 15 April. Confusingly, Devonshire then returned the favour by registering his proxy with Townshend once again on 23 Apr., though it was not until 28 Apr. that Townshend finally resumed his place in the House, along with his original proxy donor Bridgwater, whose proxy with Townshend was thus vacated. Parliament was adjourned on 29 Apr. to 5 May and Townshend, on 1 May, fired off a panicked letter to Devonshire, then at Newmarket with their Junto colleagues, in which he expressed the concern that the ministry was preparing to lay before a thinly attended House the terms of the French peace negotiators. Townshend thus urged his colleagues to return to Westminster immediately ‘at this crucial juncture’. Chatsworth, Letter Ser. 1, 121.2. This letter had its intended effect and Wharton, Bridgwater, and Somerset were all back in the House for the meeting on 5 May, as was the letter’s recipient Devonshire, thus vacating his proxy with Townshend. Pols. in Age of Anne, 308-9. On 15 May 1712 Townshend was at a meeting convened at Sunderland’s residence, where he, Somers, Halifax and a number of the Whig bishops discussed recent events in Convocation. LPL, Ms. 1770 (Wake’s Diary), f. 120. The following day Townshend was entrusted with the proxy of Charles Mildmay, 18th Baron Fitzwalter, which he held until Fitzwalter’s return to the House on 22 May. On 28 May Townshend voted in favour of an address requesting that the government’s ‘restraining orders’ preventing the captain general James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from waging an active campaign against the French, be overturned. PH xxvi. 177-81. He then subscribed the protest when the motion for an address was rejected. On 7 June Townshend similarly joined the protest against the resolution not to amend the address responding to the queen’s speech regarding the peace with a clause requesting her to ensure that all the Allies enter into a ‘mutual guarantee’ for the peace and Protestant Succession.

Townshend’s Tory kinsman, Horatio Walpole I^‡ clearly saw him as a threat, warning Oxford that the lord lieutenant was ‘very active and expensive’ in cultivating his interest in Norfolk in order to overturn the Tory monopoly at the next elections. At the beginning of December 1712 he insisted that Norfolk needed a new lord lieutenant. Add. 70262, H. Walpole to Oxford, one letter endorsed 1 Dec. 1712 and the other not dated. Poor relations with one Walpole cousin in no way diminished Townshend’s developing partnership with Robert Walpole, though, and towards the end of February 1713 this relationship was reported to be on the verge of being strengthened further with the projected marriage between Townshend and Walpole’s sister, Dorothy. Add. 61463, ff. 95-97. The match, which eventually took place later that summer, created not a little spiteful amusement in Tory ranks as ‘Dolly Walpole’ was well known as one of Wharton’s former mistresses. Wentworth Pprs, 321.

Townshend resumed his seat in the House for the new session on 9 Apr. 1713, after which he was present on 78 per cent of all sitting days. On the last day of that month he was put out of his Norfolk lieutenancy and replaced by Ormond. HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 412. On 1 June Townshend spoke in the debate on the proposal brought in by the Scots members to introduce a bill for the dissolution of the Union. He echoed Halifax and Sunderland by insisting that although he disliked the idea of dissolving the Union yet, ‘as their only design in the Union was the succession, so if they saw that secured and perhaps better provided for they would not be averse to it’. He professed himself in favour only if the Scots could assure that the Hanoverian Succession would still be secure after the Union’s dissolution. Timberland, ii. 397-8; Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 155-6; BLJ, xix. 167. At about the same time, Townshend was estimated by Oxford to be opposed to the eighth and ninth articles of the French treaty of commerce.

The elections of September 1713 confirmed the extent to which Townshend had lost ground in Norfolk. Both county seats went to Tories as did the seats at Great Yarmouth. Only King’s Lynn offered any respite with the re-election of Walpole and Sir Charles Turner, though this probably had little do with Townshend’s interest. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 412, 417, 419. In early February 1714 it was reported that Townshend had at last brought his ‘fine lady to town’. Add. 70148, Susan, dowager Lady Howard of Effingham, to A. Harley, 6 Feb. 1714. He then took his seat on 16 Feb. 1714, the opening day of the new Parliament, after which he was present on just over 85 per cent of all sitting days. On 11 Mar. he subscribed the dissent from the resolution not to amend the address requesting the discovery of the author of ‘The Public Spirit of the Whigs’. Five days later he received the proxy of Francis Godolphin, 2nd earl of Godolphin, which was vacated by Godolphin’s return on 27 April. Townshend received the proxy of John Colepeper, 3rd Baron Colepeper, on 10 Apr., but then registered his own proxy with Sunderland two days later. Townshend, however, resumed his seat the following day, 13 Apr., and continued to sit regularly thereafter. Colepeper’s proxy was vacated by his return on 7 July, three days before the prorogation.

On 2 Apr. 1714, during the debate on the address concerning the dangers to the Protestant Succession, Townshend followed Nottingham in haranguing the chamber over the threat from France, but without proposing any specific motion. Add. 22221, ff. 105-8. Six days later, as these debates continued, Townshend launched what proved to be an ill-advised assault on Oxford by moving that the controversial payment of a £4,000 remittance to certain Scots clans, alleged to be Jacobites, be taken into consideration. When the motion came to be debated, it was swatted away by Oxford, prompting Townshend to acknowledge that he had clearly been mistaken and accepting Oxford’s explanation. Timberland, ii. 415-16; Wentworth Pprs, 373-4. Despite these attacks Oxford suggested, in a private memorandum of early May 1714, that Townshend be spoken to by the lord privy seal, the earl of Dartmouth, as part of the lord treasurer’s efforts to identify ways to achieve a more balanced administration in order to forestall the attempts of his more ardent Tory colleagues. Add. 70331[-3], memorandum, 5 May 1714. In late May, Nottingham forecast Townshend as a likely opponent of the schism bill, and on 5 June Townshend spoke in the debates at its first reading. He drew on his experience of living among the Dutch to explain his opposition to the bill, arguing that:

the wealth and strength of that great and powerful commonwealth lies in the number of its inhabitants: but that he was persuaded, that if the States should cause the schools of any one sect tolerated in the United Provinces to be shut up, they would be soon as thin of people, as Sweden or Spain, whereas they now swarm with inhabitants. Timberland, ii. 425; BLJ, xix. 173.

Townshend was entrusted with Somers’s proxy on 10 June, which was vacated a mere five days later. That same day he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the schism bill. On 25 June Townshend, Halifax, Somers, and Wharton, were the peers who argued in the committee of the whole House debating the bill to prohibit subjects from enlisting in the service of the Pretender that the Pretender himself was ‘inconsiderable’ and that the real threat came from France itself, ‘whose interest and constant design was to impose him upon these realms’. Timberland, ii. 432-3. Townshend received Somers’s proxy again on 25 June, which was vacated by Somers’s resumption of his seat on 2 July. On 8 July he acted as teller, opposite Viscount Bolingbroke (as Henry St John had become in July 1712), in the division whether to agree to the address concerning the Spanish commercial treaty, which complained that the benefits from the asiento contract had been obstructed by the efforts of individuals—Bolingbroke in particular—to secure private advantages from the contract. The address was rejected by 43 votes to 55, against which decision Townshend formally protested.

Later career, 1714-38

Townshend’s career was transformed by the Hanoverian succession. He was well liked by the new monarch, whose cause he had championed while a diplomat at The Hague by recommending that the elector should press to be created duke of York and assume the role in cabinet formerly occupied by Queen Anne’s husband. B.W. Hill, Robert Harley, 168. On 5 Aug., when he first sat in the session convened at the queen’s death, he was included in the list of regents to administer the kingdom before the king’s arrival. NLS, Wodrow letters Quarto, 8, ff. 146-7. Soon after, on 17 Sept., Townshend was rewarded with the office of secretary of state and by the close of the year he had also recovered his lieutenancy of Norfolk from Ormond. For the following decade and a half Townshend worked closely with Walpole in a successful political partnership during which he held a succession of significant offices. He eventually retired from public life in 1730 and spent the rest of his life concentrating on agricultural improvements on his estates, an activity that helped earn him the soubriquet of ‘Turnip Townshend’. Plumb, Walpole, i. 85. Full details of the latter phase of his career will be covered by the second part of this work.

In contrast to the case of his kinsman Walpole, no scent of corruption accompanied Townshend into his retirement. Probity alongside the cause of crop rotation and the virtues of the turnip remained a cornerstone of his character. Coarse he may have been at times, less quick-witted than Walpole and more prone to making errors of judgment, but his was an honest bluffness combined with a steady application to business that formed a stark contrast to the reputation attached to a number of his contemporaries. Townshend died in June 1738 and was succeeded in the peerage by his eldest surviving son, Charles Townshend^†, as 3rd Viscount Townshend. The new holder of the title inherited a substantially improved estate. He was constituted guardian to his younger siblings and sole executor of Townshend’s will. PROB 11/690.