At the general election of 1812, Nugent Buckingham proposed George Nugent as MP for Aylesbury and he was returned unopposed adding to the Grenvillite numbers in Parliament.

However, as a liberal Whig, Nugent became reluctant to follow his brother’s line after Buckingham’s death and refused to join the conservative Grenvillites when they broke from the Whigs in 1817. [i] In 1818, he was opposed at Aylesbury by Whig William Rickford who stood on a ticket of: ‘May Voters be Free and Representatives Independent.’ Nugent agreed that the times called for parliamentary reform, a reduction of the influence of the crown and of ‘the undue influence of individuals at Elections.’ [ii] Both Rickford and Nugent were elected. Nugent continued to drift from his brother’s political line:

I have seen very little of my nephew George whose opinions so little coincide with those of his uncles & his brother on the fearful events which are now threatening the peace of the country, that I cannot say any thing of his Irish or English doctrines, except to wish that as he sees the storm gathering & the tempest rising he may more strongly feel the duty of keeping the vessell right. [iii] [Thomas Grenville 11 July 1820]

Richard Temple [iv] was increasingly furious with his brother’s politics and from 1820, he no longer paid Nugent’s election expenses:

Even in our hitherto quiet County of Bucks, the tone is beginning to be very unpleasant, especially in Aylesbury where George’s politics encourage all sorts of violence. [v] [20 July 1820]

In keeping with his liberalism and the Buckingham family’s long established views, he made a speech in favour of the English Catholics in March 1821.

I inclose to you my Husband’s Speech in presenting the E. Catholick’s petition. […] He says you will abuse it, but if you do not like it I know you will say so in a gentle manner & not scold him this time, And you may say to me what you like about it—for I like to know people’s real opinions. [vi] [Anne Lucy 16 March 1821]

The Catholic Question was, however, a source of conflict in the family with Richard Chandos fiercely opposing emancipation. Temple blamed Nugent for Chandos’s attitudes (but they really arose from his mother, Anna Eliza):

I have no idea what the Catholics will ultimately gain from this point, but we must not follow the example set my many of the Opposition, and shirk the question. Pray therefore keep our squad up to the arch & make them attend. I am sorry for Temple’s [Chandos] feelings. I have written to him to say what mine are, but that I leave him free. Nothing can be more considerate or affectionate than his letters. His opposition may prove embarrassing to me and will annoy Lord Grenville. George’s violence is the occasion of it. [vii] [2 March 1821]

In July 1821, the Buckinghamshire Chronicle was founded as a rival to the Bucks Gazette. The Chronicle championed the advanced whiggery followed by Nugent and was bitterly critical of his brother, Richard Temple. Nugent developed a loose alliance with prominent Whigs, including the radical Robert Smith, the Reverend Sir George Lee, Lord Spencer, Lord Althorp, Lord Blandford, the Duke of Bedford, Coke of Norfolk and several others. [viii]

George’s conduct is hourly getting so violent & so insane that I fear things will come to an explosion e’er long between us. Nothing but the greatest exertions on my part have prevented this for a long while past. [ix] [Richard Temple 30 September 1821]

Nugent retained a familial affection for his brother despite Temple’s anger towards him:

I will not advert to the other few words of your letter which are on a subject most painful to us both, further than to say that my brother has no reason to doubt however I may feel his conduct towards me, the anxiety I must always feel when I hear that he is ill and suffering. But I shall always trust to your’s being the earliest and truest account to me of any illness of his. [x] [30 March 1822]

At the end of 1822, over Christmas and New Year, a reconciliation took place:

I am sure that the reconciliation that has taken place between George & his Brother has afforded you real pleasure, to me it has been quite a Blessing & I trust nothing will occur to disturb the comfort & harmony now re-established. [xi] [Anna Eliza Brydges 8 January 1823]

In February 1824, Nugent was politically attacked by George Canning but his brother showed little sympathy:

I pity George but I cannot be sorry for him. Surely this ought to open up his eyes. [xii] [Richard Temple 20 February 1824]

Your reasoning is perfectly just and unanswerable and I shall act upon it and proceed no further on this business, feeling that I have done enough in marking my sense of M^r Canning’s conduct. I have not the least right to quarrel with him for attacking George. But I may feel the good taste of it, and the friendly disposition which it manifests. The kindness will not be forgotten, and will be returned at the first practicable opportunity. […] I have had a most amicable & feeling letter from George. [xiii] [Richard Temple 24 March 1824]

In January 1826, the Buckinghamshire Anti-Slavery Society was formed with Nugent as president. [xiv] The Society was dominated by non-conformists and stood in opposition to Richard Temple and his son Chandos, who owned the Hope and Middleton estates in Jamaica.

In the same year, Nugent was elected for Aylesbury on Whig principles having spent just £33,[xv] during which he was celebrated in a ditty:

George the people’s choice
A pure choice and free [xvi]

The political conflict with his brother continued unabated:

I wrote to George to remonstrate with him for circulating a handbill in Aylesbury. [xvii] [25 May 1827]

The strength of Nugent’s feelings on the Catholic Question led to him rejecting an offer of office in George Canning’s short lived administration of 1827:

Reports from London state the situation of the Ministry to be anything but as satisfactory as Ward [xviii] asseverated it to Chandos, at the Quarter Sessions, to be. Canning and Lansdowne are said to be at war, and that Canning cannot redeem his pledge about the Catholic Question. If this be so, the whole Government will fall to pieces. George tells me that he had refused office within the last week. Why? Because L^d Lansdowne was not in office and he did not see his way in carrying the Catholic Question. I then asked him whether that was the reason that Lansdowne did not take Office, viz that he did not see his way in the Catholic Question? George said that so he conceived. If so the Government must fall. Both parties are trying to get the Duke of Gordon. [xix] He is nibbling at my house. [xx] [Richard Temple 11 July 1827]

Nugent, however, pledged his support to Canning’s government, reserving his freedom to press parliamentary reform and repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, views which Canning opposed.

By 1829, Nugent had completely spilt from the increasingly conservative Richard Chandos, particularly over the Catholic Question. Matters came to a head in February, when Chandos held an anti-Catholic meeting at Buckingham, [xxi] much to the fury of his father. Nugent was one of the few pro-Catholics present. While Chandos claimed that more than 7,000 Buckinghamshire residents had signed his petition against concessions to Catholics, Nugent disputed this, claiming that many were duplicated, forged, or obtained through bribery of paupers. Inevitably, the meeting passed anti-catholic resolutions despite Nugent’s opposition.

Chandos determined to eject Nugent from his Aylesbury seat and that he ‘would at any rate set up any man to oppose his Uncle.’ [xxii] Nugent was, however, returned unopposed in the general election of 1830 and again in November of that year, when he was appointed Lord of the Treasury. In 1831, with Richard Temple increasingly withdrawn from politics, Chandos had his Brunswick Club friend, Lord Kirkwall [xxiii] stand against Nugent and the Reform Bill. Chandos led a hundred faggot voters [xxiv] to the poll but Nugent defeated Kirkwall by 604 votes to 508, voters approving of his support for reform and abhorrence of aristocratic influence. [xxv]

While Chandos opposed the Reform Bill, Nugent supported it, chairing a reform meeting at Aylesbury in February 1830. [xxvi] His solid liberal outlook was admired, even by his opponents. John Gibbs, auctioneer commented:

His Lordship was the advocate of general liberty, and particularly in the cause of religion. He [Mr Gibbs] was aware that a particular point—the Catholic Question—had been much contested; and that though on that head he had the same opportunity, he might probably have voted contrary to his Lordship, he still admired him for his consistency and liberality. [xxvii] [10 June 1826]

Nugent remained estranged from Chandos until April 1832, when a reconciliation was brokered by Anna Eliza Brydges:

Deeply as I feel your kindness towards myself I cannot honestly say your proposal as affects Chandos satisfies me. My feelings respecting your conduct towards him remaining unchanged since I first wrote to you upon the subject and knowing your warm heart so well felt assured you would not have refused what I then proposed but as you will not allow me to be “the Judge” I shall dwell no longer upon the Subject than to assure you that I shall not allow myself to express to Chandos that I am not fully content with all that you propose but shall urge him I [crossings out] your proposal in the brightest point of view & this I can truly say that he was from his Childhood so much attached to you that the occurrences of the last three years have caused him much more sorrow than you are aware of[.] [xxviii] [Anna Eliza Brydges 24 April 1832]

I am commissioned by Chandos to express to you that he agrees to the proposal contained in your letter to me with sincere pleasure being equally anxious with yourself to bury all that has past in oblivion, & to [?] those habits of affection with you […] I hope (please God) again to see you & Dear Chandos happy together. [xxix] [Anna Eliza Brydges 30 April 1826]

Shortly after the reconciliation, Nugent resigned his Aylesbury seat to take up the post of Lord High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands. His heir at Aylesbury was to be T.B. Hobhouse, who followed similar liberal principles and, like Nugent, supported further reform of the Corn laws. While George did not speak of ‘free trade,’ Hobhouse did, leading to a row with Independent M.P. Rickford on 21 August 1832, at a dinner at the King’s head to celebrate reform and take leave of Nugent. [xxx] Hobhouse, however, lost the election to Fenny Stratford Tory, Colonel Henry Hamner.

Nugent returned to Britain in 1835 and again stood for Aylesbury in 1837 and was defeated by William Mackworth Praed, a poet, the Tory successor to Hamner. [xxxi] Worse was to follow in 1837. At the county election, Nugent gave one of his votes to Chandos, a confused and controversial decision that was condemned by the Aylesbury News. [xxxii] At the election of 31 July, the Liberals were deeply divided. Nugent had opposed liberal W.G. Cavendish and John Gibbs nominated the radical John Ingram Lockhart in opposition to Nugent, specifically to demonstrate that Nugent could not impose himself on the Liberals of Aylesbury. Nugent attracted just 3 votes.

Nugent withdrew from the election of 1838, ostensibly due to lack of funds but perhaps because his cause was hopeless, in the light of his continued support for repeal of the Corn Laws. [xxxiii] In 1847, the Corn Laws having been repealed the previous year, Nugent stood again and was elected. He was helped by a split between the two Tory candidates.

Richard Davis summed up Nugent’s political career:

Nugent left an indelible imprint on the ‘old’ Liberal party in Aylesbury. It was his notions of liberty that they championed throughout the century, particularly with regard to Catholicism. It was he who convinced his party of the justice of catholic emancipation. And he could have no better memorial than the fact, shortly after his death, Aylesbury remained calm, while Buckingham and Wycombe and Marlow petitioned against ‘papal aggression.’ Nugent had also helped teach his own party to ‘abhor aristocratic influence.’ They needed little instruction, but what enthusiastic pupils they had become he was to learn to his own cost in 1839. [xxxiv]