On 29 Apr. 1807 Duckett’s father wrote to Lord Sandwich:
Mr Rose has this morning said that in his opinion the borough under your lordship’s command is yet open; and promised to write to you this post. The gentleman on whose account he has undertaken this, is Colonel Duckett my son; and supposing your lordship to be disengaged as to the candidate whom you may be disposed to patronize, I take the liberty to assure you that you cannot confer the honour on one more deserving it. His politics are with your lordship’s and the present government. He is a young man of strict honour and great integrity, and has abilities that in all probability may render him a character of some distinction.
George Rose did indeed write to Sandwich the same day, commending Duckett as ‘a most respectable young man of good landed property, and considerable right of succession’ and ‘of a most unimpeachable character as well as possessing considerable talents’. The terms would be left to Sandwich, whose father had been a friend of Duckett’s. Rose had no personal acquaintance with him, ‘but he is just the sort of young man I wish to see in Parliament’.
Duckett did not obtain Sandwich’s nomination for Huntingdon and came in for Lymington instead, in place of his brother-in-law Sir Harry Burrard Neale. He duly supported the Portland ministry, speaking on their behalf against Whitbread’s motion, 6 July 1807,
Duckett was returned for Plympton on the Treby interest in 1812, but vacated before the year was out. Had he remained in, he would doubtless have shown that he was ‘very antagonistic to Romanists’. He was a friend of the Duke of Cumberland. It does not appear that he attempted to return to Parliament. Curiously, a speech in justification of corporal punishment in the army was attributed to him by the reporters on 15 Mar. 1813, after he had resigned his seat. He did not realize his father’s great expectations. A renowned swordsman, he was nevertheless ‘better read in books than in men’ and ‘never a man of business in any sense’.
