Given that the earl of Bath’s second peerage was the viscountcy of Granville of Lansdown, one would have expected that his heir would be styled Lord Granville but in practice it was the territorial designation of the viscountcy that supplied the title by which Charles Granville was known until he succeeded to the earldom in 1701. The subsequent creation of a second barony of Granville (of Potheridge) for his younger brother, John Granville, and a barony of Lansdown for his cousin George Granville creates occasional confusion.
In 1676, apparently a somewhat awkward teenager, Lansdown left England in the company of his kinsman, the diplomat Sir Peter Wyche, having been granted a pass to travel abroad for four years. Reports indicate that he got no further than Paris, where he became a pupil at the famous Foubert academy, which provided training in horsemanship, swordplay, and other courtly accomplishments. There the teenager soon appears to have acquired the sort of social polish appropriate to a young nobleman. Lady Penelope Osborne later described him ‘as complete a gentleman as ever’ she did ‘behold’.
Almost the only information we have about Lansdown’s religious beliefs comes from a single letter to his new father-in-law in January 1679 describing his dismay at the persecution of French Protestants in general and the associated threats to Foubert in particular. Lansdown suggested that Danby assist Foubert (who had been forced to close his Parisian academy) to move to England ‘for then our nobility might learn at home of a Protestant what they are now obliged to seek for abroad amongst the papists’.
Lansdown finally returned to England in 1681. During his absence, and while he was still a minor, he had been elected to the Commons on his father’s interest. Like his father he supported Danby after his fall and imprisonment. In 1682 the Lansdowns separated, apparently as a result of incriminating letters that had passed between Lady Lansdown and William Leveson Gower‡ (husband of Lansdown’s sister, Jane).
On 8 Nov. 1688 Lansdown’s father, hitherto a staunch though disillusioned supporter of James II, defected to William of Orange, effectively handing control of the west country to the invading forces. Lansdown followed his father’s lead; he helped carry the train at the coronation of William and Mary and was summoned to the House of Lords in July 1689 as Baron Granville. Although he had had little opportunity to make a mark on the Commons he threw himself into his duties in the Lords with gusto. He showed little sign of political independence, becoming something of a shadow to his father – regularly acting with him in committees, divisions, and protests. Nevertheless, as a member of a substantial if rather loose west country political connection with members in both Houses, he was a significant parliamentary figure. Like his father, in the immediate aftermath of the revolution Lansdown worked closely with Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, and Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, against Carmarthen (as Danby had now become) and Daniel Finch, earl of Nottingham. Lansdown and his father were both later listed by Carmarthen as being among the opposition peers in the House.
Lansdown’s summons was dated 16 July 1689; he took his seat in the House the next day. He was thereafter present for all but one of the remaining sitting days of the session. On 25 and 27 July he was named one of the managers of the conference to discuss the amendments proposed by the Lords to the bill for duties on coffee, tea, and chocolate. The issues at stake were part of the perennial dispute between the Houses about the right of the Lords to amend money bills. On 30 July he demonstrated a belief in the reality of the Popish Plot when he voted with the minority against adhering to the Lords’ amendments on the bill to reverse the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates and joined his father and other peers in protesting against the loss of the motion. On 2 and 5 Aug. he was named as one of the managers of the conferences to consider the attainder bill.
Lansdown’s attendance for the 1689–90 session remained high. He missed only three sittings, one of which was 5 Nov. 1689 when only three peers and a single bishop attended for the traditional sermon in the Abbey church. He became an active member of the committee for the Journal after being added to it on 23 Oct. 1689. On 23 Nov., again in company with his father, he entered a protest against the decision of the House to reject a clause which would have prevented the monarch from pardoning impeachments by the Commons. Since the clause in question was part of a transparent attack on Carmarthen, the protest clearly indicates that the once close alliance between the Granvilles and the Osbornes was definitively over. Quite why this should be remains something of a mystery. The misery caused by the breakdown of the Lansdown marriage, together with allegations against the virtue of Lady Lansdown, provides an obvious explanation but it is not entirely clear that it is the correct one. As late as October 1688 the then earl of Danby had asked his wife to ‘Give my blessing and kind remembrance to Lansdown’.
Lansdown continued to be an active member of the House. On 9 Dec. 1689 he was named to the committee to draw the address to the king to put the laws in execution against papists. He was then present on every day of the first 1690 session. On 31 Mar. 1690 he was a teller in the division that resulted in the affirmation of the chancery decree in Gore v Rolt, and on 13 May 1690 he protested against the failure to allow more time to the City of London to instruct counsel concerning the reversal of the quo warranto and restoration of its ancient privileges. Over the summer he was back in the west country, playing a leading role in collecting intelligence and organizing the defence forces against a potential French invasion. With command of a militia force said to number 30,000 he was able to assure Queen Mary of their readiness to ‘venture their lives and fortunes in defence of her majesty and the present government’.
Lansdown was present for just over 98 per cent of sitting days in the 1690–1 session; he was absent on a total of 12 days, 3 of which can be explained by a brief spell of imprisonment at the behest of the House. In October 1690 there were fears of a duel between Lansdown and his erstwhile brother-in-law, Peregrine Osborne, the future 2nd duke of Leeds, then styled earl of Danby but sitting in the House of Lords under a writ in acceleration as Baron Osborne. Whether the quarrel, which had apparently festered for a year, was a manifestation of the feud between the Granvilles and the Osbornes is unclear, especially as the young Danby was a somewhat mercurial and unpredictable character. Lansdown’s second was to be his cousin George Granville (later Baron Lansdown) and Danby’s was to be Thomas Stringer‡. The House ordered all four to be arrested; as a result, Lansdown was held in the custody of black rod for five days before being discharged on 27 Oct., after promising on his honour to ‘do nothing, directly nor indirectly, either as principal or second’ in furtherance of the quarrel.
On 6 Oct. Lansdown underlined his Protestant credentials by voting against the resolution to release James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonment in the Tower, with Carmarthen adding that he would be ‘as his father’.
In the same month Lansdown contracted a second marriage, one that allied the Granvilles to one of William III’s closest friends.
In April 1692 Lansdown was despatched to the west country to oversee defensive arrangements there.
During the 1692–3 session Lansdown attended 89 per cent of sittings and on 4 Nov. 1692 he was as usual named to the sessional committees for privileges, the committee for the Journal, and the committee of petitions. On 7 Dec., in what was effectively an attack on Nottingham, he protested against the Lords’ decision to reject the motion that a committee of both Houses consider what advice should be given to the king regarding the state of the nation. On 20 and 21 Dec. the campaign against Nottingham continued when Lansdown was appointed as one of the managers of conferences to consider the papers that Nottingham had presented to the Lords. Later that month he voted in favour of the place bill. In January 1693, as predicted by Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, Lansdown voted in support of Norfolk’s controversial divorce bill. Despite his known support of the place bill he gave in to court pressure and was one of those peers whose abstention on 3 Jan. enabled the bill to be narrowly defeated. The following month he voted that Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, was not guilty of murder. On 8 Mar. he entered a protest at the decision to reject a proviso concerning searches of peers’ houses in the bill for reviving and continuing laws.
By that time, concern about the political reliability of the Granville clan meant that Nottingham was considering who could be appointed to the lord lieutenancy of Cornwall in place of Bath and Lansdown. The only alternative candidate he could come up with was Charles Bodvile Robartes, 2nd earl of Radnor, who was not thought to be of sufficient weight to command the county.
During the 1693–4 session Lansdown attended 87 per cent of sittings and was named to the usual sessional committees and 17 other committees of the House. These included, on 22 Feb. 1694, the committee for the bill for the speedy payment of the debts of his west country neighbour John Stawell, 2nd Baron Stawell, deceased. On 14 Mar. he was also named to the committee for a similar bill for another deceased west country neighbour, Bryan Rogers of Falmouth. In what amounted to a further attack on Nottingham, on 15 Jan. 1694 Lansdown was appointed one of the managers of a conference with the Commons to investigate intelligence failures during a naval expedition against the French fleet in the summer of 1693. On 13 Mar. 1694 he was one of several peers ordered to appear before the House as part of an investigation into abuses in the use of letters of protection. During the following, 1694–5, session he attended 69 per cent of sittings and was named to the committee of privileges and nine other committees.
The first session of the 1695 Parliament saw Granville present at 75 per cent of sittings and named to the committee for privileges and 15 other committees of the House. Despite having been a regular attender for some six years, it was perhaps a commentary on the extent to which he was in the shadow of his father and his forceful younger brother that, at the taking of the oaths on 22 Nov. 1695, he was listed as John rather than Charles, Lord Granville. Lansdown, like his father, was by now moving back to his Tory roots. On 21 Jan. 1696 he, together with his father and an entirely Tory group of peers – Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, Robert Sherley, 8th Baron Ferrers, John Jeffreys, 2nd Baron Jeffreys, and the soon to be disgraced bishop, Thomas Watson, of St Davids – protested against a clause in the bill to prevent false and double returns in elections which they maintained was derogatory to the powers and privileges of the House of Lords. Although his brother in the Commons was reluctant to do so, Lansdown signed the Association on 28 Feb. 1696.
Lansdown attended 83 per cent of sittings in the 1696–7 session of the 1695 Parliament and was named to 13 committees of the House. In December 1696 he failed what was essentially a test of loyalty to the new regime when he opposed the Fenwick attainder. He entered dissents to the conduct of proceedings on 15 and 18 Dec., voted against the bill, and protested when it passed its third reading on 23 December. The following month, on 23 Jan. 1697, he protested against the decision not to give a second reading to the bill for regulating elections to the House of Commons. On 15 Apr. he entered yet another protest, this time against the failure to agree with a committee amendment to the bill to restrain the number and ill practices of stock-jobbers. In February 1697, despite all previous promises to his father, the coveted title of Albemarle was bestowed on the king’s favourite, Arnold Joost de Keppel (though as an earldom rather than a dukedom). Thereafter, like his father, Lansdown’s loyalties were unequivocally Tory.
In the next, 1697–8, session Lansdown attended 80 per cent of sittings and was named to 44 committees of the House. He was also named to the committee to consider the indictment and proceedings against Charles Mohun in relation to the death of William Hill, the committee to consider methods of restraining the expense of suits in courts of law and equity (which was almost certainly prompted by his father’s ongoing litigation over the Albemarle inheritance), and the committee for the bill for determining differences by arbitration. On 7 Jan. 1698 he was also named to the committee to consider the constitutionally and politically contentious issue of appeals from decrees made in the court of chancery in Ireland. He was presumably in agreement with the decision that an appeal from that court lay to the House of Lords in England rather than to the House of Lords in Ireland because on 20 May he was named to the committee to draw up an address to that effect. In March 1698 he opposed the bill for punishing Charles Duncombe‡ and on 1 July he entered a protest at the resolution to give a second reading to the bill to establish the two million fund and settle the East India trade.
Lansdown attended 81 per cent of sittings during the 1698–9 session and was named to 22 committees of the House including, as usual, the committee for privileges. He voted against the Lords’ resolution to assist the king in retaining the Dutch guards and on 8 Feb. 1699 entered a dissent when the resolution passed. On 27 Mar. he was named to the committee to draw an address to the crown to restore Captain Desborrow to the command from which the House agreed that he had been unjustly removed.
The 1699–1700 session saw Lansdown attending 89 per cent of sittings; he was named to 18 committees. In February 1700 he was predicted to be a supporter of the East India Company bill and he voted in favour of adjourning the House into committee to consider amendments to the bill.
In the first Parliament of 1701 Lansdown attended 81 per cent of sittings and was named to 19 committees of the House, including that for the address on the king’s speech on 12 February. On 8 Mar., in the continuing fallout from the Desborrow affair, he entered a dissent to the resolution to address the king for the removal of the suspension of Captain John Norris for great neglect of duty. On 15 Mar. he protested against the Lords’ decision to reject the second and third heads of Nottingham’s report on the partition treaty. Three days later, together with Nottingham and others, he entered two protests against resolutions that were intended to impose parameters on the content of an address to the crown on the partition treaty. Lansdown, along with a small group of mainly Tory peers, wanted the committee to include criticism of the exclusion of the emperor from the negotiations but not to condemn the actions of Louis XIV or warn against his future ambitions. On 20 Mar., together with a much larger group of peers, he protested against the decision not to send the address on the treaty to the House of Commons for their concurrence. The following month, on 16 Apr., he protested against the resolution to address the crown against censuring or punishing the Whig peers until the impeachment had been tried. Later that day he entered a second protest, this time against the decision to expunge the reasons for the first protest. On 3 June he again entered two protests, this time against the wording of the response to the Commons over their failure to mount a timely prosecution of the Whig lords. Nevertheless, in June 1701 Lansdown voted for the acquittal of his father’s friend, John Somers, Baron Somers.
Lansdown made his last appearance in the House of Lords on 24 June 1701. Although he succeeded his father as earl of Bath on 22 Aug. he never attended the Lords in that capacity. On 4 Sept. 1701 he was found dead, a gunshot wound to his head and a ‘brace of pistols’ beside his body. It was said that he had been ‘melancholy for some time past’ but the coroner’s inquest returned a verdict of death by misadventure.