have ensured him the victory. As it was the difference in voting was but small, the numbers being Mansfield 157 votes, Townshend 145 and Hyde 138. Had the election been delayed for two or three weeks he would have won, even with this division among the members of his college. The younger members of the university were warm in his favour and the accession, as Cole acknowledges, of "a young flight of Masters of Arts" would have carried his election.
Nothing daunted by this defeat, Townshend stood again at the general election in 1780. There were now five candidates for the honour of representing their university in parliament. The three old competitors were joined by Richard Croftes, also a member of St. John's college who had represented the university from 1771 to the dissolution in 1780, and William Pitt, who hailed from Pembroke Hall. Mansfield was at the head of the poll with 277 votes, Townshend came next with 247 and lord Hyde was a good third with 206 votes. The numbers of Croftes sank to 1 50 votes and Mr. Pitt had only 142. What was most of all remarkable in these contests was the extreme youth of the candidates, all of them with the exception of Croftes and Mansfield being under 30.
At 1784, the year of the next general election, the fortunes of the Whigs had ebbed out. There were now four wooers for the honour of Granta's hand. Three of them were ancient rivals, Mansfield, Townshend and Pitt, and the fourth lover was lord Euston, of Trinity college. A complete change had come over the minds of the electors. Pitt headed the poll with 351 votes and lord Euston came next with 299. Townshend was a good third with 278 votes, and the supporters of Mansfield, who had been first at the poll in 1780, dwindled to 181. The return of lord Euston was due to the preponderance of votes cast for him
