SACKVILLE, Charles (1643-1706)

‘If one turns to the authors of the last age for the character of this lord, one meets with nothing but encomiums on his wit and good nature. He was the finest gentleman in the voluptuous court of Charles the second, and in the gloomy one of King William.’ H. Walpole, Royal and Noble Authors (1806), iv. 13. Best known for his poetry and for his prominent role as one of the Restoration’s most notorious rakes, as the dissolute companion of Sir Charles Sedley^‡, 5th bt. and lover of Nell Gwyn, Buckhurst (as he was styled prior to his elevation to the peerage) was also a significant political figure. He succeeded in gaining the affections of Charles II and William III and enjoyed considerable interest both in his own right and by virtue of his close connection to the Compton family. Buckhurst remained in high favour for most of his career in spite of his predilection for riotous excess and his reputation for laziness. It may have been precisely this that recommended him to King Charles, though his ability to retain office under King William is perhaps less easy to explain.

The reign of Charles II, 1660-1685

There has been some dispute over the correct year of Buckhurst’s birth, with different sources offering 1637, 1642 and 1643 as possible dates. Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 436. The last seems now to be most probably correct, which meant that Buckhurst’s election to the Cavalier Parliament for the family seat of East Grinstead occurred when he was still under age. Shortly after his return to Parliament, Buckhurst, his brother, Edward Sackville, and several others achieved fame for the very worst of reasons, being tried for murder following a drunken assault on a tanner they claimed to have been a highwayman. Pepys Diary, iii. 34-36. Buckhurst and his companions were pardoned by the king after being convicted of manslaughter; but the experience did nothing to temper his excesses. HMC Var. viii. 66; CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 303, 340, 352, 359. The following year he was involved with Sedley and others in a notorious display of ‘super-sodomitick wickedness and blasphemy’ at Oxford Kate’s Cock Tavern in London, for which he again found himself arrested and reprimanded. HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 409; Bodl. Carte 77, ff. 645-6. Buckhurst served as a volunteer in the navy in 1664 but there is some doubt as to whether or not he saw action. His involvement was probably confined to composing a ballade addressed to ‘the Ladies’, supposedly written on the eve of the engagement with the Dutch. Harris, Charles Sackville, 32-34.

Although an inactive member of the Commons, Buckhurst early on became disquieted by the nature of the Restoration regime. HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 376. While his father, Dorset, who was also concerned by the direction of events, concentrated on voicing his concerns about matters of privilege, Buckhurst soon became attached to the grouping of his kinsman George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham. In March 1667 Buckhurst was one of those named by Buckingham as a suitable custodian of information the duke hoped might vindicate him following his public disgrace. Add. 27872, ff. 8-9. It also appears to have been association with Buckingham that led to Buckhurst narrowly avoiding coming to blows with Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, in the aftermath of the fatal duel between the duke and Francis Talbot, 11th earl of Shrewsbury, in 1668. Unlike that of Buckingham and the unfortunate Shrewsbury, Buckhurst and Oxford’s quarrel was resolved peacefully by the interposition of the king and George Monck, duke of Albemarle. Add. 36916, f. 60; Carte 36, f. 125; HMC Le Fleming, 55. That October, Buckhurst was once more notorious following another night of excess with Sedley during which they were seen ‘running up and down all the night with their arses bare through the streets.’ Pepys Diary, ix. 335-6.

Despite such riotous behaviour, Buckhurst was able to remain on good terms with the king. In July 1669 he was sent on a diplomatic mission to visit the dauphin. HMC Portland, iii. 311; Durham UL (Palace Green), Cosin Letter Book 5a, 28. In September it was reported that he had been sworn a gentleman of the bedchamber with a salary of £1,000 p.a., though he was not admitted formally until the close of December. Add. 36916, f. 142; Verney ms mic. M636/23, Sir R. to E. Verney, 30 Dec. 1669; Bodl. ms Eng. lett. c. 210, f. 117. In February 1670 he was further rewarded with the grant of a pension for life. Harris, Charles Sackville, 41. In May Buckhurst was sent as an envoy to Louis XIV to request permission for the king’s sister, the duchesse d’Orléans, to extend her stay in England by a further few days. Mapperton, Sandwich mss, x. 274-8. On his return, he was appointed to a joint lieutenancy in Sussex with his father. Buckhurst offered to stand down in Dorset’s favour. It is difficult to know whether this was an act of generosity or laziness: given Buckhurst’s disposition, it is probably fair to suggest that there were elements of both. HMC Hastings, ii. 321; Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C13/5, 6. In June it was rumoured that both he and Ralph Montagu, later duke of Montagu, were to be appointed commissioners of the treasury and the same month he stood godfather to Charles Beauclerk, earl of Burford (later duke of St Albans), the king’s son by Nell Gwyn. Verney ms mic. M636/23, Sir R. to E. Verney, 1, 2 June 1670; Add. 36916, f. 183. In mid-July he was again employed as an emissary between the courts of Whitehall and Paris, accompanying Buckingham, Sedley and ‘divers’ others to convey the king’s condolences on the death of the duchesse d’Orléans. CSP Ven. 1669-70, p. 205; Norf. RO, BL/Y/1/34.

Lack of application appears to have been a consistent trait with Buckhurst. In August 1672, Buckingham complained to Dorset that Buckhurst’s company was ‘at present the worst in my whole regiment’. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C46/2. Henry Savile^‡ also found reason to bemoan Buckhurst’s lethargy. In October 1672 he complained to his brother, George Savile, Viscount (later marquess of) Halifax, of his failure to secure a pension of £500 from the king stating that, ‘if my lord Buckhurst were but half as vigorous as he is good-natured I had had it.’ Savile Corresp. 28-29. Buckhurst himself in January 1673 was granted a free gift of £4,400. CTB, iv. 34, 93. He was also said to have been responsible for securing for his uncle, Lionel Cranfield, 3rd earl of Middlesex, appointment as a lord of the bedchamber, in return for which Middlesex undertook to settle his estate on his nephew. Williamson Letters, ii (Cam. Soc. n.s. ix), 71. There were rumours that Buckhurst was to marry Diana Verney that year, but the marriage failed to transpire. Instead, in 1674 he entered into a secret marriage with the widowed countess of Falmouth. Add. 70012, ff. 47-8; Verney ms mic. M636/26, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 1 Sept. 1673; HMC Ormonde, iii. 356. Buckhurst’s father disapproved of the match on the grounds of Lady Falmouth’s unsavoury reputation, but Dorset also struggled to believe that his son had lied consistently about the situation: ‘I cannot think that you are so little a gentleman and an honest man as to have done any such thing and that at least you should find nobody else to break your word with all but your own father.’ Kent HLC, Sackville mss, U269/C102;.

Buckhurst’s marriage, which was owned publicly in the autumn of 1674, proved to be just one of a number of disappointments that contributed to a breakdown in relations with his parents during the year. Verney ms mic. M636/27, W. Fall to Sir R. Verney, 29 Oct. 1674; Carte 243. f. 161. The death of his uncle, Middlesex, in October provoked a series of legal actions between Buckhurst and the earl and countess of Dorset over the terms of Middlesex’s will. Middlesex had left the greater part of his estate to Buckhurst (as agreed the previous year) and only a token £10 to his sister, Lady Dorset. TNA, C 33/245, ff. 280, 289; C 33/247, f. 102. The affair prompted Buckhurst to write to his father over his intention to prove Middlesex’s will though he insisted that:

when either of you shall signify your displeasure I will immediately desist, for I am so heartily weary of these unnatural disputes and so sensible how unfit it is for a son in any thing to oppose his parents that I will rather venture my ruin than continue the controversy. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C13/8.

Buckhurst’s right was finally settled after a number of challenges and it was in acknowledgement of his status as heir to the Cranfield estates that he was raised to the peerage as earl of Middlesex on 4 Feb. 1675. Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 21 Jan. 1675; Carte 243, f. 182. By that time he also appears to have attempted to secure for himself appointment to the lord lieutenancy of Ireland, though if this was so he was unsuccessful. Carte 243, f. 161.

Middlesex was introduced into the House on 17 Apr. 1675 between his cousin John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham) and Robert Montagu, 3rd earl of Manchester. The same month the lord treasurer, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), estimated him as being likely to support the non-resisting test bill. Although he was marked as present on the attendance list for the day, Middlesex was excused at a call of the House on 29 Apr. but he resumed his seat the following day and proceeded to attend on 24 days in total, 55 per cent of all sitting days in the session, though he was not named to any committees.

Elevation to the Lords did nothing to curb Middlesex’s inebriated shenanigans. In June, he was involved in another notorious display of drunken excess when, in company with Henry Savile and John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester, he defaced the sundial in the king’s garden at Whitehall. Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 24 June 1675. His continuing misdemeanours failed to stem the steady flow of preferment and the same month Middlesex was granted the lease on 35 houses on the Strand, the whole worth an estimated £1,220. 7s. 1d. in annual rent. Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 448. He took his seat in the House for the new session on 13 Oct. 1675 but sat for just six days before again being excused at a call on 10 November. He returned to the House the following day, and sat for a further two days before he was absent for the last week of the session, prorogued on 22 November. Overall he was present on approximately 43 per cent of the total number of sitting days.

Despite the substantial grants and pension awarded him, Middlesex appears to have been in financial difficulties by 1676 when he mortgaged a number of his Warwickshire estates for £15,000. This may have been connected to a demand from his father for £2,000 owing to one Mr Woolf for the mortgage of Dorset Court. Middlesex insisted that he had not been dilatory in paying the money and that ‘Mr Woolf has been all along very peevish.’ Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C13/9-10. Middlesex’s doubtless expensive life at court may also have added to his difficulties. Fleetwood Sheppard, Henry Guy^‡, Baptist May^‡ and Middlesex were all noted as being regular dining companions of the king during 1676 and 1677, either at the lodgings of the duchess of Portsmouth or those of Middlesex’s former mistress Nell Gwyn. Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 450.

Middlesex took his seat in the House once more on 15 Feb. 1677 and the following day he was named to the committee established to discover the author of the pamphlet questioning whether Parliament had been dissolved by its long prorogation. During the course of the session, of which he attended a little over half of all sitting days, he was named to just four further committees for private bills. Although he had not been one of those to support Buckingham, Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, and the other peers in protesting at the continuation of the Parliament at the opening of the session, he was briefly forbidden attending court for visiting Buckingham in the Tower without permission. The intervention of Danby secured his return to favour on this occasion. Verney ms mic. M636/30, Sir R. to E. Verney, 22 Feb. 1677. On 15 Mar. he was granted leave by the House to visit the lords in the Tower again. In May he delivered Buckingham’s petition to the king seeking his release, though his lack of vigour on his cousin’s behalf threatened to delay his enlargement. Marvell ed. Margoliouth, ii. 194. Middlesex was noted as ‘worthy’ by Shaftesbury in May and, later that summer, in alliance with Nell Gwyn, Rochester and the rest of ‘the merry gang’ he was at last successful in procuring Buckingham’s release from the Tower. HMC Portland, iii. 355-6. On 27 Aug. Middlesex succeeded as 6th earl of Dorset. With his father’s death, he was continued in office as now sole lord lieutenant of Sussex. He also inherited an appeal from one Mr Wetton to be granted the continuation of a protection that had been made out for him by the previous earl. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C123 (118). In November Dorset’s reputation for generosity, and a previous intervention on his behalf, also encouraged the Quaker William Penn to appeal to him in his capacity as lord lieutenant of Sussex to curb the persecution Penn and his wife were suffering at the hands of Sir Henry Goring^‡ and Colonel John Alford^‡, the county’s commissioners for recusants. Pprs. of William Penn ed. M.M. Dunn and R.S. Dunn, i. 515-16.

Dorset resumed his seat following the summer recess on 3 Dec. 1677, though no mention was made of his succession to his father’s earldom in the Journal. For the next few months in correspondence he was generally referred to as earl of Middlesex. Eg. 3338, ff. 99-100; Add. 28051, f. 41. He continued to sit for the remainder of the session but although he does not appear to have been an active member of the House, on 3 Feb. 1678 Shaftesbury wrote to him to implore his assistance in gaining his release from the Tower, avowing his resolution to lie at the king’s feet and make his submission to the House. Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 418. By this time Dorset seems to have stood a little aloof from his former associates. In April Danby was advised that Dorset and Rochester were by then ‘but distant assistants to Buckingham’. Add. 28051, f. 41. On 4 Apr. he voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter.

Dorset returned to the House at the opening of the new session of May 1678, of which he attended 22 days, approximately half of its sitting days. The death of Dorset’s brother, Edward Sackville, on 10 Oct. offered him the opportunity of again exercising his interest for the parliamentary seat at East Grinstead. Having considered setting up another brother, Richard Sackville, he settled instead for backing a moderate opposition figure, Thomas Pelham^‡. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C118/33; HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 421. Dorset took his seat for the next session on 21 Oct., the last of the Cavalier Parliament, and attended almost 63 per cent of its sitting days. On 15 Nov., during the debates in committee of the whole House on the bill disabling Catholics from sitting in Parliament, he voted against making the declaration against transubstantiation under the same penalty as the oaths. Shortly afterwards, Dorset fell foul of the irascible earl of Pembroke, who challenged him to a duel—though the eccentric Pembroke claimed he could not remember the reason. The most likely cause was a difference between the two that had been in train in chancery since 1675 over rights of warren at Aldbourne Chase in Wiltshire claimed by Pembroke but for which Dorset had petitioned in 1674. C 9/68/70; C 22/817/17; C 33/247, ff. 181, 545-6; Harris, Charles Sackville, 77. The House intervened and both were imprisoned briefly before Pembroke’s apology secured their respective releases on 28 November. Dorset resumed his seat the following day and continued to sit for a further 14 days before the prorogation of 30 December. On 26 Dec. he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill relating to payment of money into the exchequer. The following day he voted against committing Danby.

The dissolution of the Cavalier Parliament offered Dorset another opportunity of exercising his influence in East Grinstead, but a dispute with his mother led to the Sackville interest being split in the borough. Despite this, Dorset’s nominee, his cousin Edward Sackville^‡, was successful in securing one of the seats. In the new Parliament, Dorset attended two meetings of the abortive session of 6-13 Mar. 1679 and took his seat again on 18 Mar. when the new session convened for business. He was again present for just under half of all sitting day of this Parliament. Before the Parliament’s commencement, Danby assessed him initially as a potential supporter who should be spoken to by the king, but Danby’s subsequent estimates revised his view of him to unreliable and, ultimately, doubtful. On 10 May Dorset voted in favour of appointing a joint committee of both houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords and he entered his dissent from the resolution not to do so. Carte 103, f. 270.

The ongoing dispute between Dorset and his mother over Middlesex’s will was finally settled during the summer of 1679 and in August relations were sufficiently restored to permit them to co-operate during the elections for the new Parliament. Even so, the reinvigorated Sackville interest was only sufficient to ensure the return of one member, William Jephson^‡, at East Grinstead. Their other nominee, Henry Powle^‡, by then Dorset’s stepfather (he had married the 5th earl’s widow in June), managed only to secure 28 votes. The remaining seat went to Goodwin Wharton^‡, younger son of Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 422.

Dorset suffered the loss of his wife in childbirth in September 1679. Verney ms mic. M636/33, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 18 Sept. 1679. The marriage had not been a successful one and Lady Dorset’s demise attracted an opprobrious ode from Dorset’s cousin, Mulgrave. Harris, Charles Sackville, 78-79. Dorset took his seat in the House for the following Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680 and the same day he introduced Charles Gerard as earl of Macclesfield. By this time Dorset appears to have been accounted an associate of James Scott, duke of Monmouth. Add. 28049, ff. 102-3. In spite of this he seems not to have countenanced exclusion. He was present in the House on 15 Nov. (despite being noted as absent in one account), and voted to put the question and then to reject the exclusion bill at its first reading. He sat for a further 10 days before quitting the session on 4 Dec. for the remainder of the year, his physician submitting a certificate on 6 Dec. that he was too sick to attend. He was consequently absent for the vote on the impeachment of William Howard, Viscount Stafford, the following day and also missed participating in the initial consideration of a dispute between Sir Oliver Butler and the corporation of Rochester, for which his support had been canvassed by the mayor and one of the prebends of Rochester in opposition to Butler shortly before. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C121 (65), E. Clerke to Dorset, 1 Dec. 1680. Delays in hearing the case meant that on Dorset’s return to the House on 4 Jan. 1681, he was able to hear a renewed petition by Sir Oliver Butler to have the matter determined. He then attended two subsequent days before the dissolution of 10 Jan. prevented further progress in the case.

Dorset joined with Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton, in standing bail of £5,000 for Sir William Scroggs at the beginning of January 1681. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 62; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 4, R. Tempest to E. Poley, 7 Jan. 1681. The following month, Sir Cyril Wyche^‡ and Henry Powle were both returned successfully on the Sackville interest at East Grinstead. In advance of the new Parliament Danby predicted that Dorset would either vote for him or be neutral. Dorset duly took his seat in the brief week-long Oxford Parliament on 22 Mar. but sat for just five of its seven days before suffering a fit of apoplexy while in the king’s bedchamber on 26 March. Predictions that he would not survive the episode proved wrong but during the summer he was granted leave to travel abroad to recover his health. Harris, Charles Sackville, 83.

Prior to his departure, Dorset was one of a number of peers to petition the king to pardon the murderous Pembroke, who had found himself once more in hot water over the killing of William Sneeth. TNA, SP 29/415/192. Dorset was also petitioned by some of the inhabitants of East Grinstead to use his interest on their behalf to ensure that the assizes were held in their town rather than being located elsewhere in the county. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C118/2. Dorset returned from a six months’ tour of France in February 1682. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 165. The following year he was granted a warrant for Burford House in Windsor in trust for Nell Gwyn and, following her death, for his godson, Burford. CSP Dom. 1683 (Jan.-June), p. 48. Rumours that Dorset might remarry circulated in April 1683. John Stewkeley informed Sir Ralph Verney^‡ of plans for Dorset to marry Lady Mary Powlett, though Dorset appeared less than eager to press his suit, preferring to spend the majority of his time with his mistress, Philippa Waldegrave. Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 23 Apr. 1683.

Dorset stood surety of £5,000 for Henry Arundell, Baron Arundell of Wardour, in February 1684. In April he was responsible for Percy Kirke^‡ being put out of his place as one of the gentlemen pensioners on account of his insulting behaviour towards Dorset. Kirke was accused of goading Dorset at the playhouse and repeatedly calling him a ‘rascal’. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. ii. 452, 462; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 301; HMC Hastings, ii. 350. Continued favour with the king was presumably behind Dorset’s election as high steward of Stratford-upon-Avon in July. In October Narcissus Luttrell^‡ recorded that he was in high favour at court. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 316.

The reign of James II and the Revolution, 1685-1690

Dorset’s good fortune outlived Charles II. His refusal to vote for exclusion and support for the Catholic Arundell of Wardour no doubt recommended him to his successor, and in March 1685 he was confirmed in office as lord lieutenant of Sussex. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 108. During the elections of that month Simon Smith^‡ and Thomas Jones^‡ were returned on the Sackville interest at East Grinstead. Shortly after, Dorset married again, to Lady Mary Compton, a daughter of James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton. Add. 70013, f. 235. At the coronation in April Dorset was bearer of the queen’s sceptre with dove and, the following month, orders were made for his arrears of pay as gentleman of the bedchamber (amounting to £2,333 6s. 8d.) to be settled.

Dorset took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May after which he was present on an additional 17 days, just under 40 per cent of all sitting days. Although the county of Sussex remained reasonably unaffected by the Monmouth rebellion in June, Dorset demonstrated his habitual want of application by requesting to return to London in the first days of July, a request that was granted only on the condition that he order his deputies ‘to take great care to preserve all things quiet, particularly at Chichester, it being a very factious place.’ CSP Dom. 1685, p. 241.

In spite of the new king’s earlier favour, Dorset increasingly came to oppose James II’s policies. This may explain his decision to forbid his countess from accepting an invitation to attend the king’s birthday ball at Whitehall in October 1685. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 45. He was one of the Compton clan to attend the lords commissioners for ecclesiastical causes at the third appearance of his wife’s uncle Henry Compton, bishop of London, in August 1686. In January 1687 he attempted, unsuccessfully, to prevent certain local justices from being put out of the commission of the peace. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 243; E. Suss. RO, ASH 932. The same month he was estimated to be opposed to repeal of the Test. The death of his mother in April provided him with the prospect of a substantial addition to his inheritance, but wrangling over the succession to her personal estate with his stepfather, Henry Powle, resulted in a series of actions in chancery. Verney ms mic. M636/42, Dr H. Paman to Sir R. Verney, 31 May 1687. Dorset claimed that Powle, who had married his mother despite ‘not having an estate sufficient to settle on her in jointure or being a person suitable to her quality’, had refused to acknowledge Lady Dorset’s last will by which the majority of her possessions were to come to Dorset. In response, Powle accused Dorset and his family of taking advantage of Lady Dorset’s frailty to devise a fraudulent will and that rather than leaving her personal estate to her son, Lady Dorset had promised to ‘principally consider’ him ‘in the disposal of the remainder.’ C 33/269, ff. 148-50. The dispute was temporarily settled in Powle’s favour, though Dorset continued to prevaricate in obeying the court’s decree. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 13; C 33/269, f. 181.

Although Dorset was listed as being opposed to the king’s policies in May 1687, the same month he was appointed one of the commissioners to meet with Barillon to adjust the differences in existence between England and France over the American colonies. The appointment clearly made no difference to his attitude to the government. In November he was again noted as being opposed to repeal of the Test and the same month he was rumoured to be one of those likely to be put out of office. Add. 70149, A. Pye to A. Harley, 12 Nov. 1687. Dorset’s opposition to James’s policies was noted once more in January 1688: the same month he was dismissed as lord lieutenant of Sussex for failing to persuade the people to agree to repeal of the penal laws, ‘being himself of their opinion.’ HMC Downshire, i. 286; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 427. It was speculated that he would be replaced by Sir John Gage but in the event it was Francis Browne, 4th Viscount Montagu, who succeeded him in the office. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 43, f. 5; CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 131. Dorset was also the recipient of one of several threatening letters circulated at the time, warning of his imminent assassination for refusing to embrace catholicism. Dorset ignored the ‘friendly admonition’. Browning, Danby, i. 381-2; Add. 75361, Strafford to Halifax, 6 Feb. 1688, Add. 34510, f. 82.

In May 1688 Dorset was involved in a comical episode when he surprised a barber hiding under his bed at his house in Lincoln’s Inn. The man was one of a small party of burglars who had infiltrated the house. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 43, f. 96. The following month, rather more seriously, Dorset was one of those proposed by Bishop Compton to stand surety for one of the seven bishops. Bodl. Tanner 28, f. 76. Although Dorset retreated to Copt Hall for much of the latter part of James II’s reign, he continued to make his opposition to the government apparent and in July he commented scornfully on the appointment to the Privy Council of Christopher Vane, later Baron Barnard, the posthumous son of Sir Henry Vane^‡, that he believed ‘his father got him after his head was off.’ Burnet, i. 295. The following month, perhaps significantly, it was reported that the queen dowager was ‘considering moving to Knole’, the Sackville house in Kent. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 87, newsletter to E. Poley, 10 Aug. 1688, folder 88, newsletter to E. Poley, 17 Aug. 1688. On 16 Nov. 1688 Dorset subscribed the petition to James II for a free Parliament. As events moved against the king, he worked closely with his kinsman, Bishop Compton, to ensure the safety of Princess Anne. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 356;. Before the king’s return from Salisbury, Dorset and Compton arranged for the princess’s flight from her apartments. On leaving London, it was to Dorset’s Essex home of Copt Hall that they first resorted before Princess Anne and Compton continued on to Castle Ashby and thence to Nottingham. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 365.

Dorset was a prominent figure in the activities surrounding the meeting of the lords during the period between James’s flight and Prince William’s assumption of power. On 11 Dec. 1688 he was present at the meeting at the Guildhall, on which day he was one of those to sign the declaration to William of Orange. He was heavily involved in the provisional government of the lords over the next few days and attended almost every day until the council was disbanded on 15 December, even participating in the meeting of nine lords who assembled at three in the morning on 13 Dec. to discuss measures to counteract the ‘Irish panic’ then gripping the capital. On the one day on which he does not appear in the attendance register, 14 Dec., his motion that a letter be written to Heneage Finch, 3rd earl of Winchilsea, ordering him to move to the rescue of the family of Arundell of Wardour (for whom Dorset had previously stood surety), was read and accepted by his peers. Kingdom without a King, 67, 71-72, 74, 84-85, 92, 103, 109; CSP Dom. 1687-9, pp. 378-9. The importance of Dorset’s role in the early meetings of the lords of the provisional government is further indicated by the fact that one of those lawyers nominated to attend was Mr Bradbury, the Sackville family lawyer. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 425. Dorset signed the Association on 21 December.

Dorset’s prominent role in the Revolution helped to ensure that Sir Thomas Dyke^‡ and Thomas Sackville^‡ were returned successfully for East Grinstead to the Convention on the Sackville interest. Dorset took his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he sat on approximately 48 per cent of sitting days. On 31 Jan. he voted in favour of inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen in the Commons’ vote on the status of the crown. Four days later he agreed with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’ instead of ‘deserted’ and the same day he entered his dissent from the resolution not to agree to the Commons on the inclusion of the words ‘and the throne is thereby vacant’. On 6 Feb. he and John Churchill, Baron Churchill (later duke of Marlborough), interrupted a free conference to present Princess Anne’s declaration waiving her rights to the succession in favour of her brother-in-law. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 210, ff. 351-2. The same day Dorset again voted in favour of agreeing with the Commons’ use of the term ‘abdicated’ and ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’ in the division which saw that wording finally accepted.

Dorset’s role in assisting Princess Anne and his warm support for the new regime was rewarded with a series of new appointments. In February 1689 he was sworn to the Privy Council and made lord chamberlain of the household and the following month he was also restored to his former lieutenancy of Sussex, though some saw his preferment as indicative of the Comptons’ interest. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 502; CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 21; Harris, Charles Sackville, 117. Further marks of favour followed. In March he was appointed to the keepership of Greenwich Palace and in July he stood as one of the godfathers (as proxy for the king of Denmark) to William, duke of Gloucester. CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 27; Phillips, Sackville Family, i. 470; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 564. It is a measure of Dorset’s influence at this time, as well as of his reputation for generosity, that it was to him that Thomas Sprat, bishop of Rochester, addressed two letters justifying his actions in sitting on the ecclesiastical commission, though Sprat may also have been eager to seek Dorset’s protection as a close associate of the Compton family. Sprat was also quick to congratulate Dorset on his appointment as lord chamberlain and in recommending one Fairfax to serve as his secretary. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C121 (65), T. Sprat to Dorset, 14 Feb. 1689. Through his influence, Thomas Shadwell (who had dedicated his successful play, The Squire of Alsatia, to Dorset) was appointed poet laureate in place of John Dryden, though Dorset ensured that Dryden was compensated for his loss. Within a few months of Dorset being named lord chamberlain the king seemed convinced that Dorset was accepting money presumably in return for favours. If this was so, the misdemeanour was not sufficiently important to warrant his removal. Add. 75367, f. 35r; Halifax Letters, ii. 223; Chatsworth, Halifax mss, Devonshire House notebook, section C, f. 3. On 30 July, Dorset voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill reversing the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates. During the month-long adjournment from 20 Aug. Charles Berkeley, styled Viscount Dursley and sitting in the House as Baron Berkeley (and later 2nd earl of Berkeley), on 13 Sept. registered his proxy with Dorset. He would have had little opportunity to use it, as the House met on only three further occasions before the session was prorogued on 21 October.

Dorset took his seat in the new session on 23 Oct. 1689 and was as usual present for approximately half of all sitting days. Excused at a call on 28 Oct, he was back in the House three days later and sat thereafter for much of the remainder of the year. In January 1690 he was noted as being present at a ‘debauch’ attended by the king, Mulgrave, Marlborough, Henry Sydney, Viscount Sydney (later earl of Romney), Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, and Thomas Wharton (later marquess of Wharton), held at the town house of Charles Talbot, 12th earl (later duke) of Shrewsbury. In the list he compiled between October 1689 and February 1690, however, Carmarthen (as Danby had become) classified him as an opponent of the court. In the elections in February, the Sackville interest prevailed once more in East Grinstead with Dyke and Sackville returned again. The same month Dorset was noted as being eager to attend the planned congress of the allies at The Hague. He was warmly recommended for the role by his friend Dursley, who hoped that Dorset would not object to being put forward without his prior knowledge. Dorset was not appointed to the post. CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 444; BCM, select series 36 (A), f. 12.

1690-1697

Dorset took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690 after which he was present on approximately 74 per cent of all sitting days. He was excused at a call on 31 Mar. but resumed his seat the following day. In April it was rumoured that Dorset, William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, Thomas Wharton and others all intended to resign their offices. The report was soon contradicted but one letter writer circulating the rumour insisted that ‘all these lords are for a republic.’ Verney ms mic. M636/44, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 30 Apr. 1690, Dr W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 6 May 1690; HMC Finch, ii. 278. There is no reason to believe that Dorset was ever in favour of anything other than a monarchy. The same month he was appointed one of the commissioners to inspect the new lieutenancy of the city of London. On 13 May he entered his protest against the resolution not to allow the corporation of London more time to be heard by their counsel during the discussions over the bill to restore the corporation’s charter. In June Dorset was appointed joint lord lieutenant of Somerset with Carmarthen and Devonshire and the same month he was appointed to the council to advise the queen during the king’s absence. CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 39; Add. 17677 KK, ff. 407-12; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 51. Queen Mary evidently did not share her husband’s belief in her council’s abilities, recording acerbic comments of many of them and reserving for Dorset the judgment that he was ‘too lazy to give himself the trouble of business, so of little use.’ In a letter to the king she repeated her assessment noting that he came to the council ‘as little as he can with decency and seldom speaks.’ Mems. Mary Queen of England, 30; Dalrymple Mems. iii. 95 (pt II, bk v, app.).

On both 7 and 28 July 1690 he acted as one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament. CSP Dom. 1690-1, p. 49. He took his seat for the new session on 2 Oct. following which he was present on 55 per cent of all sitting days. In mid-October he received a request from Lord Dursley at the Hague that he would send him a proxy form so that he could grant Dorset his proctoral vote for the remainder of the session. However, there is no record of such a proxy in the registers. BCM, select series 36 (A), ff. 86-7. On 6 Oct. he voted for the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough from their imprisonment in the Tower. On 27 Nov. he submitted a petition to the House to reverse the order of chancery in the case between him and his stepfather, Henry Powle, over his mother’s estate. On 9 Dec. the House voted accordingly in Dorset’s favour. Verney ms mic. M636/44, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 9 Dec. 1690. Dorset was mentioned as one of the leading peers participating in talks with William Penn about a possible Jacobite restoration during the winter of 1690-1 but it seems most unlikely that Dorset may have been prepared to rebel against the Williamite government. Surr. Hist. Cent., 371/14/J3. Dorset joined the king in Holland in March 1691 but the bad crossing permanently weakened his already impaired constitution. He returned to England the same month. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 568; Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 12 Mar. 1691. In early August he suffered the loss of his countess from smallpox. Contemporaries commented on the sudden passing of ‘a fine lady in all respects’ who ‘is much lamented’ and Dursley condoled with his friend Dorset, begging him not to give into excessive grief. Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 4, 12 Aug. 1691; Add. 70149, A. Pye to A. Harley, 11 Aug. 1691; BCM, select series 36 (B), f. 42.

The elevation to the Lords of Vere Fane, 4th earl of Westmorland, on the death of his brother, Charles Fane, 3rd earl of Westmorland, led to a vacant seat in the parliamentary representation for the county of Kent, for which Sir Thomas Roberts^‡, bt. was quick to seek Dorset’s interest in October 1691. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C119/2. Roberts was successful, though it seems likely that Dorset supported his defeated adversary, Robert Smith. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 306. Dorset’s interest also appeared lacking when he proved unable to secure the office of housekeeper at Whitehall, which was in his gift as lord chamberlain, for his old companion, Sedley, the same month. The post went instead to the son of the previous holder, his old enemy Percy Kirke^‡, who had presumably secured the reversion.

Dorset took his seat at the opening of the new session on 22 Oct. 1691 and proceeded to attend on approximately a third of all sitting days. He was named towards the close of the year along with a host of other peers in William Fuller’s information of those supposedly in contact with the French court. Glasgow UL, ms Hunter 73 (T.3.11), lxxi. Once again, there seems little reason to place much faith in the suggestion that he was engaged in plotting in earnest for a return of the exiled king.

Dorset was installed as a knight of the garter on 24 Feb. 1692. Add. 29578, f. 290; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 366. In March he was rumoured to be on the point of marrying Juliana Alington, daughter of William Alington, 3rd Baron Alington. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 374. Speculation persisted over the summer but no further progress was made in the negotiations. HMC Rutland, ii. 156. In early August he was one of the cabinet council who travelled to Portsmouth to inspect the fleet. UNL, PwA 1348; Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 3 Aug. 1692. Dorset was again present at the opening of the new session, on 4 Nov., after which he was present on 43 per cent of all sitting days. On 31 Dec. Dorset followed the court line and voted against committing the place bill and on 3 Jan. 1693 he voted against the passage of the bill. In an assessment compiled by Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, of likely supporters of the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, which was before the House in early January, Dorset’s anticipated attitude was listed as uncertain. On 31 Jan. he entered his protest against the resolution not to proceed with the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, and on 4 Feb. he found Mohun not guilty of murder.

In February 1693 the controversial marriage of Mary Sackville, Dorset’s natural daughter by his mistress Philippa Waldegrave, and his nephew, Lionel Boyle^‡, 3rd earl of Orrery [I], was acknowledged publicly. The alliance provoked Orrery’s mother, Dorset’s sister Mary, dowager Lady Orrery into ‘the greatest fury at it imaginable’ and it was said to have ‘made some noise abroad’. Add. 75375, ff. 25-6; Carte 79, f. 490; HP Commons, 1690-1715, iii. 304. True to form, in July Dorset was able to sit through a meeting of cabinet council without venturing an opinion in the debate on whether an Irish Parliament should be summoned. HMC Finch, v. 183. Rumours continued to circulate in the autumn about a match between Dorset and Juliana Alington. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 197. He took his seat in the House for the new session on 7 Nov. 1693 but was then absent for much of the remainder of the month. On 14 Nov. he was excused at a call and he failed to resume his place until 30 November. Overall he was present on 43 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 24 Feb. 1694 Dorset entered his dissent from the order to dismiss Montagu’s petition requesting the production of exhibits in his cause with John Granville, earl of Bath. Late in March, a dispute between Dorset as lord chamberlain and Norfolk as earl marshal over precedency in matters of ceremonial was heard in council. ‘After an hour’s arguing’ the problem was referred to a committee of the great officers of state. Add. 34350, ff. 10-11. Dorset was appointed a commissioner for prizes in June. CSP Dom. 1694-5, p. 204. In August Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, was surprised that the usually silent Dorset, ‘who never was so against anybody’, had joined the ranks of those intent on excluding Normanby (as Mulgrave had since become) from the cabinet council. UNL, PwA 1241/1. Throughout the late summer and autumn of 1694 rumours of Dorset’s impending marriage with Juliana Alington continued. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 354; Verney ms mic. M636/47, J. to Sir R. Verney, 8 Sept. 1694, M636/48, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 18 Oct. 1694.

He sat in the following session on its first day, 12 Nov. 1694, and attended 54 per cent of the total number of its sitting days. During this first month, Dorset seems to have been unsuccessful in recommending Bishop Compton for further preferment (possibly to the wardenship of All Souls, Oxford). Bodl. Ballard 21, f. 54. The session was, however, overshadowed by the illness and death of Mary II. Dorset’s long-expected marriage to Juliana Alington was ‘put off by reason of the queen’s illness’ and her death on 28 Dec. seems to have put paid to any further notion of the marriage occurring, though reports continued to circulate about it well into the following year. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 418; HEHL, HM 30659 (42); Add. 75376, ff. 83-84. Following the queen’s funeral, Dorset was involved in a dispute with Charles Powlett, styled marquess of Winchester (later 2nd duke of Bolton), and the countess of Derby over the rights to the funeral furniture at Whitehall. The death of Simon Smith^‡ at East Grinstead in February 1695 gave him a further opportunity to employ his interest when he introduced his nephew and son-in-law, Orrery, for the vacant seat. HP Commons, 1690-1715, iii. 304. Smith’s death also offered Dorset a chance to exercise his patronage as lord chamberlain as Smith had also held the office of king’s harbinger, worth £500 p.a. and in Dorset’s gift. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 430. After the prorogation of 3 May, Dorset was appointed one of the ‘kinglings’, the seven lords justices nominated to govern in the king’s absence. Horwitz, Parl. Pols. 153; CSP Dom. 1695, f. 330.

At the general election of November 1695, Dorset was unsuccessful for the first time in over a decade in securing the return of his nominees at East Grinstead, with both Orrery and Spencer Compton^†, later earl of Wilmington, being defeated by the Tories Dyke and John Conyers^‡. Dorset took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 Nov., after which he was present for just under a third of the sitting days of the session. He was absent in the country from 13 Feb. 1696 and was not present to sign the Association when it was first available for subscription. Nevertheless in early March Sir William Trumbull^‡ wrote to assure him that the king was ‘well satisfied with your prudence and conduct in his Majesty’s service in the country, where he thinks your stay some short time longer will be of advantage to his affairs’. CSP Dom. 1696, p. 67. Dorset was back in Westminster by 9 Mar. when he did put his name to the Association and resumed his seat in the House two days later. Browning, Danby, iii. 189. He then attended just six more days before the prorogation of 27 April.

Returning to the Lords on 20 Oct. 1696 for the following session, Dorset displayed renewed activity in the House, attending for approximately 53 per cent of all sitting days. Sir John Fenwick^‡, 3rd bt, apparently saw him as potentially sympathetic as the baronet appealed to both Dorset and Devonshire to visit him in the Tower to hear his information. While Devonshire complied with Fenwick’s request, Dorset appears not to have done. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 115. Dorset voted with the court for the second reading of the bill for Fenwick’s attainder on 18 Dec., but five days later at its third reading voted against passing the bill. He was one of a number of the lords justices of the previous summer – including Godolphin, Devonshire and Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke – who withdrew their support at the last minute, which James Vernon^‡ thought came close to scuppering the measure. Shrewsbury Corresp. 452; Horwitz, Parl. Pols. 186. Dorset, however, did not go so far as to subscribe to the subsequent protest against the bill’s passage. It was probably shortly after this, in January 1697, that Dorset employed his interest to intervene on behalf of Francis Turner, the deprived bishop of Ely, who had been arrested following a period in hiding but was soon after granted leave to go abroad. Turner was in no doubt of Dorset’s role in his release declaring that, ‘next to offering my thanks to God I beg leave to pay them to your lordship though after paying all I can I must ever owe them.’ Kent HLC (CKS), U269/C122, F. Turner to Dorset, ‘New Year’s day’. Soon after, Dorset stepped down from his principal household offices, probably on account of failing health. In March 1697 the keepership of Greenwich palace passed to Romney (as Sydney had become) and in April, Dorset resigned the lord chamberlaincy to Sunderland, in return for £10,000. CSP Dom. 1697, pp. 68, 110; Kenyon, Sunderland, 289. Matthew Prior^‡ congratulated Dorset on his retirement, while expressing the desire that, ‘you will never leave the court so absolutely as not to be near it in every case wherein the welfare of the nation may ask your assistance.’ Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 10, ff. 292-4.

1697-1706

Despite his retirement, Dorset remained one of the lords justices and he continued to exercise his interest: in October 1697 he moved a petition on behalf of Henry de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], before the lords justices. The following month he provided evidence before them concerning information brought against an Irishman named Cotter by one Marlow. In December he was appointed a commissioner of appeal in admiralty cases. CSP Dom. 1697, pp. 427, 467, 511. Dorset took his seat in the new session on 3 Dec. 1697, following which he was present on 41 per cent of all sitting days, and on 15 Mar. 1698 he voted against committing the bill to punish Charles Duncombe^‡. At the general election held following the dissolution on 7 July, a compromise was arrived at between the divided interests in East Grinstead, whereby they undertook to share the representation. Consequently, in the ensuing election Orrery was returned with Conyers. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 607. Also in July Dorset was reappointed one of the lords justices. CSP Dom. 1698, p. 368.

Dorset took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698, after which he was present on approximately 42 per cent of all sitting days. He was one of three former lords justices of the previous summer to be replaced when the king departed for Holland in June 1699. Horwitz, Parl. Pols. 258. On 22 July he was the victim of an attack by highwaymen and robbed of over 60 guineas. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 540-1. He took his seat in the following session on 16 Nov. 1699, after which he was present for just over 40 per cent of all sitting days. In early February 1700 he was forecast as being opposed to continuing the East India Company as a corporation and on 23 Feb. he voted against adjourning into a committee of the whole House to discuss two amendments to the East India bill. On 9 Apr. he was appointed a manager for a conference on the Lords’ wrecking amendments to the Commons’ combined land tax and Irish forfeitures bill and thus he may also have been involved in the two bad-tempered conferences held the following day. It is likely that in the end Dorset obeyed William III’s commands to see the supply bill go through by voting to recede from the House’s amendments, as his name does not appear in the protest of 10 Apr. against that decision.

Towards the close of his life, Dorset seems to have suffered increasingly from some form of mental incapacity. He was reported sick in September 1700 and, according to one rumour, he became so addled in his mind that he remained in retirement at Knole conversing with his dead former associates. Another story, which was denied, told how he had tried to commit suicide: a letter to Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton, explained ‘how barbarously the town has cut my lord Dorset’s throat with a case-knife: and put him to the [trouble?] of coming up to town and making his appearance in all the coffee houses to convince the world of the contrary.’ Longleat, Bath mss, Prior pprs. 12, ff. 422, 424, 430, 434; HMC Downshire, i. 799-800; CSP Dom. 1700-2, p. 119. Dorset may not have tried to take his own life but he was undoubtedly experiencing difficulties both physical and material at the time. During 1700 he was forced to sell Copt Hall and his health remained a matter for concern. VCH Essex, v. 122; Morant, Hist. and Antiqs. of Essex, i. 47-48. Nevertheless he continued to attend the House. He took his seat for the new session on 10 Feb. 1701, following which he was present on approximately 46 per cent of all sitting days, and on 17 June he voted in favour of acquitting John Somers, Baron Somers.

Dorset’s attendance declined markedly after the winter of 1701. Although he was one of those who entertained the Imperial and Venetian ambassadors at the close of December, he was absent from the opening of the new Parliament on 30 Dec. 1701. Add. 70075, newsletter, 27 Dec. 1701. He took his seat on 12 Jan. 1702 but was present on just 11 days of the 100-day session. Despite his failing health, he was continued on the Privy Council at the accession of Queen Anne and was also confirmed in office as lord lieutenant of Sussex. CSP Dom. 1702-3, p. 390. In July 1702 the Sackville interest again came under fierce assault at East Grinstead, where the two Tories, Conyers and John Toke^‡, were returned in place of Dorset’s candidates. The same month, Dorset’s only daughter was married to Henry Somerset, 2nd duke of Beaufort, both being underage. Add. 70073/4, newsletter, 9 July 1702; Verney ms mic. M636/52, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 9 July 1702. Dorset took his seat shortly after the opening of Queen Anne’s first Parliament on 31 Oct. 1702 but he was then absent until 13 Nov. when he is listed as attending the Lords for the final time.

In about January 1703 Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, estimated that Dorset would be opposed to the occasional conformity bill. He was listed as having voted on 16 Jan. in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause, despite being absent from the attendance list that day. Presumably his vote was cast by proxy, but its holder must remain unknown as the proxy register for that session is now missing. In February he was noted as being ‘dangerously sick’ and his health remained in the balance on and off through the year. Add. 70075, newsletters, 13, 16 Feb, 10 Aug, 9 Oct. 1703. Even so, on 22 Feb. his petition against certain aspects of the Savoy hospital bill was heard before the House. At the beginning of the 1703-4 session, he was again estimated as opposed to the occasional conformity bill and he was recorded as having voted against the bill by proxy on 14 Dec., but unfortunately no record of proxies survives for that session either.

In the last years of his life Dorset caused his family considerable concern by forming a liaison with three sisters named Roche. Little was known of them beyond speculation that they had come from Ireland. It is possible that they had some connection to the Mr Roche employed by the Boyle family, which could explain how the acquaintance came to be made. Cal. Orrery Pprs ed. E. MacLysaght, 324-5. Whatever the origin of the association, it was gossiped widely that they ‘had the management of him and the spending of his estate.’ HMC Downshire, i. 836. In October 1704 Dorset took matters a step further by marrying Anne Roche, who thereafter was accused of keeping him in virtual confinement. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 476. The liaison was presumably the reason for a cooling of relations with other members of his family. His Compton relatives in particular took vigorous action to protect his children from their new stepmother. Dorset responded in kind and in a letter of about this time to his heir, Lionel Sackville, styled Lord Buckhurst (later duke of Dorset), he warned how he had heard that Buckhurst’s grandmother, the dowager countess of Northampton, ‘has ordered you not to obey me, if you take any notice of what she says to you I have enough in my power to make you suffer for it beyond what she will make you amends for.’ Phillips, Sackville Family, ii. 3.

On 3 Nov. 1704 Dorset registered his proxy with Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax, for the 1704-5 session (which had opened on 24 Oct.), and on 23 Nov. he was excused at a call of the House. Noted as being in favour of the Hanoverian succession in an analysis compiled in April 1705, Dorset seems by then to have retreated entirely from political involvement. Toke and Conyers again held East Grinstead at the general election of May and, although Dorset was listed as one of the peers thought to be in Captain Lucy’s interest for Warwickshire, Lucy was unsuccessful and there is little evidence of Dorset exerting himself on his part. Badminton House, Coventry pprs. FMT/A3/3. In the first session of the new Parliament Dorset was again excused at a call of the House on 12 November.

By the end of 1705 Dorset was thought by some to have completely lost his reason. His protégé Matthew Prior was despatched to Bath by members of Dorset’s family to find out the truth of his condition, apparently in the hopes of having him declared insane. Prior refused to humour them. He insisted that his mentor was not out of his wits and that, ‘Lord Dorset is certainly greatly declined in his understanding, but he drivels so much better sense even now than any other man can talk, that you must not call me into court as a witness to prove him an idiot.’ Phillips, Sackville family, i. 481-2.

Dorset did not survive for long after Prior’s visit. He died at Bath in virtual seclusion on 29 Jan. 1706, closely guarded to the end by his third wife, who it was widely reported would soon follow him. HMC Ormonde, n.s. viii. 219. In his will Dorset named James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, Halifax and Lady Dorset as trustees. Phillips, Sackville Family, ii. 482. He confirmed a settlement of 26 Dec. 1704 in which he had settled a number of his Sussex estates on Lady Dorset for her jointure and made further substantial bequests including annuities amounting to more than £350, many of which were intended for the benefit of his wife and her family. In the event of his son, Buckhurst, dying without male heirs, Lady Dorset was to have an additional £20,000. Dorset also stipulated that should Buckhurst, or any other of his relatives attempt to ‘interrupt or disturb’ the countess ‘in the peaceable or quiet enjoyment’ of the lands settled on her, she was to receive a further £5,000 for her trouble, in addition to any other grants made to her. The death of the dowager countess a matter of months after her husband saved the estate from upheaval. In her absence administration was granted to the dowager countess of Northampton, who later faced claims by Joan Roche, another of the sisters and Lady Dorset’s executrix, that she had been deprived of her rights to a bequest of £1,000. Kent HLC (CKS), U269/T84/13; PROB 11/494; Surr. Hist. Cent., 371/14/M/3. Dorset was succeeded in the peerage by his only surviving legitimate son, Buckhurst, as 7th earl of Dorset. He had left the estate in so considerable a state of dilapidation that his kinsman, Spencer Compton, the future earl of Wilmington, estimated that what only seven years before had generated an annual income in excess of £7,000 could only be expected to provide an annual allowance of £800 for the new earl. In the light of such difficulties, Compton advised the young lord to remain abroad until he came of age. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 11; Harris, Charles Sackville, 227-8; Phillips, Sackville Family, ii. 3-4.